Hello - need to make 5 posts

[wheels5894]

Hi guys! Wheels rollin' in!

I haven't got much to say by way of introduction except that, as I am from the UK (Scotland actually) I am almost certainly more left wing than anything in the USA. After all, our healthcare is provided by the state and is free.

Anyway, I look forward to chatting on the main forums.

 

[jamie]

The forum also includes a politics section, with a subheading of "homosexuality", so for all of these reasons, I regard it as a good medium to debate the topic.

Good point. I don't discuss politics, it's too controversial.

From a religious standpoint, Christians are to refrain from any type of fornication without differentiation and to call on others to do the same.

 

[PureX]

Hi guys! Wheels rollin' in!

I haven't got much to say by way of introduction except that, as I am from the UK (Scotland actually) I am almost certainly more left wing than anything in the USA. After all, our healthcare is provided by the state and is free.

Anyway, I look forward to chatting on the main forums.

Welcome!

 

[GuySmiley]

Hi guys! Wheels rollin' in!

I haven't got much to say by way of introduction except that, as I am from the UK (Scotland actually) I am almost certainly more left wing than anything in the USA. After all, our healthcare is provided by the state and is free.

Anyway, I look forward to chatting on the main forums.

Your healthcare isn't free, but I get your meaning.

Oh, lol, welcome!

 

[GuySmiley]

GuySmiley

In a sense, I regard all objectivity to be indemonstrable, whether or not we can have beliefs which just so happen to be objectively true.

Anyhow, regarding morality, it only seems useful as a system/ideology for facilitating harmonious (and ideally happy) coexistence between conscious entities (us). With this in mind, the most effective means of achieving this can be rationally derived and inferior approaches can therefore be rationally rejected.

To give a slightly more specific explanation/example, a system of morality that is concerned with treating everybody equally (by default) and promoting mutual well-being for everybody is a system that is beneficial to everybody and therefore a good system for harmonious coexistence.

The moment we agree that the core objective of morality should centre around promoting our mutual well-being, we develop a quasi-objective morality, whereby every further judgement is "objectively" correct or incorrect with regards to that principle. I.E. we agree on the foundational principle so it is not necessary to debate as long as we are only interacting with like-minded individuals.

If morality isn't objective, problems occur when people aren't like-minded. Someone else might not value "treating everybody equally." What makes "treating everybody equally" a good thing?

Dear leader Kim Jong-Un doesn't seem to think treating everybody equally and promoting mutual well being is important. Can we say he's wrong just by the power of our agreement? What happens when lots of people agree that it's in the best interest of everyone if we steal from one member of society?

A further means of analysing the efficacy of a system of morality is to identify any inconsistencies in its application. Any good moral ideology should incorporate consistently applicable principles and therefore exclude any arbitrary condemnations. Consistency is key to rationality. If it turns out that we cannot have a consistently applicable system of morality for whatever reason, then we may even have to resign ourselves to favouring the least inconsistent.

To give a simplified example of consistency: Murder, theft and rape are wrong as they involve deliberately harming other conscious entities (bad for harmonious coexistence). Homosexuality is not because it does not (it is victimless, ergo irrelevant to harmonious coexistence). I see immorality as being very much harm/victim based anyhow as any system opposed to victimisation (of anybody) protects everybody (including you/me). Doesn't that sound like a system you'd like to promote?

Weird how everyone seems to think murder theft and rape are wrong. Even people who say they have no problem with stealing from others, or murdering others, will object if they are going to be murdered, or stolen from. That reveals their real feelings about murder and theft. Doesn't that point to objective morality?

I don't claim to know that morality isn't (truly) objective btw but currently see no reason to believe that it is and so naturally, will not believe it to be until such a reason manifests. Subjective and objective moralists share the same first two claims but the objective moralist adds a third and therefore has the burden of proof for it.

1) People have a sense of morality.
2) This sense of morality varies from person to person.
3) One moral view is (objectively) correct, while all others therefore aren't.

Hmm, I don't think the objective moralist would say #2. That would be:
2) People are capable of suppressing and disobeying their own sense of morality. (usually for selfish gain)

 

[CabinetMaker]

Hi. Welcome to the forum.

One more for luck. Btw, if anybody thinks they have a rational argument against the moral legitimacy of homosexuality, please feel free to challenge me with it (my pet topic).

God says homosexuality is wrong and, therefore, immoral. That's it. I believe that God is real and that He is sovereign and gets to determine what is right and what it not. I trust Him to get it right.

If anybody has a good reason to believe that any gods exist (should really be expressible within a paragraph or two), feel free to share. I've never encountered one. Things that won't work:
- Bible quotes.
- Anecdotal experiences (if you don't have an explanation for them, the explanation is "I don't know", not "God did it").
- Likewise for "How did the universe form?" etc etc I don't know or care and my inability to answer a question which somebody else pretends to be able to is in no way relevant to me identifying that their belief is unsubstantiated.

My belief in God is is based purely on experience. It is sufficient for me. You will have to have your own experience.

- Likewise for "how is morality objective if there is no God" or anything like that. Undesirable consequences of accepting that reality is the way it is in no way alter how reality actually is. I.E. Your approval of reality has no baring upon how reality is. There are certainly aspects of it which I disapprove of, yet they remain.
Anyway, you get the gist.

Like it or not, God wrote His law on our hearts. That is why we have an instinctive knowledge of right and wrong. We are free to ignore it and say silly things like homosexuality is morally right, but we still have this instinctive sense of right and wrong. If God were other than He is, none of us would ever know for our moral compass would point in a different direction and we would never know otherwise.

 

[Truths4yer]

.

.

This post includes replies to PureX and Jamie.
PureX

ME: 3) "A picture (or in this case, video) is worth a thousand words"
YOU: I agree. Steve Earle and I are the same age.

I think that makes you more than twice my age ^^. Anyhow I realise I may have put my foot in it a bit, so I should offer clarification:

A picture/video can convey a concept in a way which is more readily accessible and/or apparent/ undeniable than mere typed words. Every piece of information contained within a video/picture and every possible rational argument can however alternatively be expressed with identical accuracy in writing/typing.

I know you weren't necessarily suggesting otherwise but realised I left myself open to suggestions that I must agree with the notion that a religious experience could offer unreproducible information/ insight (which could only be obtained or expressed in such a format).

The song wasn't really my kinda song anyway, though I wouldn't be surprised if the songs I like weren't your cup of tea either. Thanks for sharing anyhow.


Jamie

Good point. I don't discuss politics, it's too controversial.
From a religious standpoint, Christians are to refrain from any type of fornication without differentiation and to call on others to do the same.

I'm drawn to the controversial topics the most personally. They are those where there could be significant opportunity to enact change (improvement) for instance. They are also often tied to significant injustices in the world, which need to be challenged and rectified.

Christians calling upon others to refrain from any fornication, especially when it involves legislation, would be an example of where an issue might arise between Christians and myself.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

One more for luck. Btw, if anybody thinks they have a rational argument against the moral legitimacy of homosexuality, please feel free to challenge me with it (my pet topic).
If anybody has a good reason to believe that any gods exist (should really be expressible within a paragraph or two), feel free to share. I've never encountered one. Things that won't work:
- Bible quotes.
- Anecdotal experiences (if you don't have an explanation for them, the explanation is "I don't know", not "God did it").
- Likewise for "How did the universe form?" etc etc I don't know or care and my inability to answer a question which somebody else pretends to be able to is in no way relevant to me identifying that their belief is unsubstantiated.
- Likewise for "how is morality objective if there is no God" or anything like that. Undesirable consequences of accepting that reality is the way it is in no way alter how reality actually is. I.E. Your approval of reality has no baring upon how reality is. There are certainly aspects of it which I disapprove of, yet they remain.
Anyway, you get the gist.

I'll bet you're a lot of fun at a party?

 

[GuySmiley]

I'll bet you're a lot of fun at a party?

Well . . . fun is subjective . . . :chuckle:

 

[Truths4yer]

Reply 2 to GuySmiley

Reply 2 to GuySmiley

This is reply is exclusively to GuySmiley's post, though others are of course welcome to read and respond. Thanks for the reply.

If morality isn't objective, problems occur when people aren't like-minded. Someone else might not value "treating everybody equally." What makes "treating everybody equally" a good thing?

Treating everybody equally (by default) has the maximum possible benefit for the collective and therefore facilitates harmonious coexistence among decent people. This elevates quality of life for all.

What if there is somebody who isn't decent (I.E. who wants to take significantly more than they give)? We exclude them from our lives as much as possible. Typically this would involve social ostracisation and we naturally do this already. If I am wrong to assume that you try to distance yourself from selfish people then please correct me, explaining why you don't.

In extreme cases we incarcerate people who are so immoral as to present a substantial danger to us and our loved ones. This is an extension of excluding/ distancing ourselves from them and is the lesser of two evils. It is technically an "evil" within this ethical framework because it infringes upon their desires but it is the lesser of two because our infraction is dwarfed by theirs (or the one they would perpetrate if free to do so).

This would be simpler in some ways in a world that wasn't overpopulated because we could simply go our separate ways and they could either live in solitude or alongside other like-minded individuals (selfish personalities would seem to be mutually exclusive however if directed towards each other). If selfish personalities form gangs who prey on the "decent" people then we obviously defend ourselves as best we can, which is again characterised by the aforementioned lesser of two evils (exclusion) approach.

Another rationale which I might suggest is that those who perpetrate evil, opt out of the ethical framework which protects those that do not. You could perhaps say the magnitude of their crime equates to the extent to which they opt out (which would maintain the principle that a punishment should fit the crime).

My ideas on morality are of course always potentially evolving, though a good system would seem to be one which has mutual (fair/ equal) benefit to participants. This is a utilitarian/ pragmatic approach.

Dear leader Kim Jong-Un doesn't seem to think treating everybody equally and promoting mutual well being is important. Can we say he's wrong just by the power of our agreement?

Of course we can. We can't objectively say that he is "wrong" but this is not a weakness of our ethical framework if objectivity was never an available option to begin with. We can say that he is wrong within the stipulations of our ethical framework.

We can attempt to surround ourselves with like-minded people and create/ promote a fair/ just society. Good people may not always prosper, as is likely the case for many in North Korea for instance. One battle won by evil does not however mean that decent people simply give up the war.

My ethical framework offers no promise of universal justice because it does not offer false promises. It aspires to offer the best possible approach for promoting justice over injustice. Reality often requires that we make the best of an imperfect situation.

What happens when lots of people agree that it's in the best interest of everyone if we steal from one member of society?

An injustice likely occurs and people such as myself do everything we can to convince others of it, just as I am doing now, in order to shift the balance back towards a just society.

Even people who say they have no problem with stealing from others, or murdering others, will object if they are going to be murdered, or stolen from. That reveals their real feelings about murder and theft. Doesn't that point to objective morality?

No, it reveals that people don't like to be stolen from, murdered or raped, whether or not they derive pleasure from doing these things to others. These things are inherently ("objectively") destructive and therefore unappealing to the victim, whether or not they are themselves a perpetrator. Concern about one's own imminent murder doesn't equate to concern for the same happening to others.

ME: 2) This sense of morality varies from person to person.
YOU: Hmm, I don't think the objective moralist would say #2. That would be:
2) People are capable of suppressing and disobeying their own sense of morality. (usually for selfish gain)

You seem to be assuming that all people "deep down" have an identical set of beliefs about what is moral/immoral. I don't think this is the case. Many Hindus would consider cows sacred for instance and harming them may be considered deeply immoral (I'm not well informed on the specifics of such beliefs). Certainly many men/women in fundamentalist Muslim countries would consider it deeply immoral for a women to go out in public without her hair covered (in some, it may even be required that her face be covered). Homosexuality would be another example I suppose. I don't consider it remotely immoral (deep down or otherwise) but some would vehemently claim that it is.

The objective moralist thinks that there is an objective moral code, not necessarily that everybody knows "deep down" what the specifics of this moral code are. If I am wrong about this, please correct me/ explain how so (there is a small chance I am inadvertently misusing definitions). Thanks for the reply.

 

[GuySmiley]

This is reply is exclusively to GuySmiley's post, though others are of course welcome to read and respond. Thanks for the reply.

Treating everybody equally (by default) has the maximum possible benefit for the collective and therefore facilitates harmonious coexistence among decent people. This elevates quality of life for all.

What makes maximizing benefit for the collective and facilitating harmonious coexistence good? You see where this goes . . . it comes down to these things just being your personal opinion (given your presupposition that morality isn't objective.) If blondes and brunettes think people with red hair should be slaves, then that is their personal opinion and you have no standing to say they are wrong besides that it doesn't maximize the benefit and facilitate a harmonious coexistence, which is also just your personal preference, so who cares.

Now, that's kind of a ridiculous example right? And mostly every example I could bring up really doesn't pass a 'straight-face' test. (it really wouldn't happen in the real world) But that's because morality being objective fits with our life experience better than thinking its subjective.

I wont go line by line with the rest of the post because it'd just be to reiterate what I just said, and I like short conversations. :cheers:

 

[Desert Reign]

MORAL LEGITIMACY:

Thanks for the reply. Moral legitimacy appears to be a definitionally accurate/ useful collocation. Concerning justifying homosexuality, there is no need to justify anything by default (morally). We have to justify condemnations of others, rather than them having to present a justification of innocence against any and all accusations, however absurd they may be. This translates to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty".

But that is simply not true. Innocent until proven guilty applies to crimes. That is why the phrase 'moral legitimacy' is so loaded. The onus of proof lies on the accuser of a crime but immorality is not per se a crime. There is no onus of proof, neither did I condemn anyone because this is not about legitimacy. I am sure you would like it to be because then you can argue how bad those awful people are who hate homosexuality. But that would be a straw man and really only yourself who would be deluded. And it would still be a straw man even if there are (as I am sure is the case) people out there who condemn homosexuality, because two wrongs don't make a right.

Sure there is, there is me . Countries don't dictate morality, they attempt to approximate it,

Well, that may be so, though I doubt it. Their main concern is to establish order and freedom and to protect the disadvantaged. Whether any of this is moral or not is just a bonus.

sometimes very poorly as they are corrupted by irrational ideals, such as capitulating to the seemingly arbitrary will of an invisible, incorporeal, inaudible supreme being (I.E. a being which is indistinguishable from a non-existent one).

Then since you recognise that these countries are very far from correct morality, why don't you just agree with me in the first place? What you are doing is seeking legitimacy for homosexuality because you need affirmation. Like I said before, you are welcome to have a homosexual relationship so long as you keep it to yourselves. But don't come begging for me to tell you that you are doing anything terribly wonderful.

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE:

Oh dear hehe, just when things were going so well ^^. I should first clarify that there are at least two types of marriage; 1) Religious marriage and 2) Legal/ civil marriage.

Most people who object to SS (legal) marriage do so (it seems) on the basis that it conflict with their idea of what religious marriage is or should be. I.E. they object to one on the basis of the other.

Well, then all you have to do is ask instead of just guessing... Otherwise you have yet another straw man. But I am fairly sure you will find most Christians tell you that marriage is marriage, whether religious or not. So it really is a straw man. We object to homosexual marriage because it is not marriage, not because we are religious.

RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE:

Religious marriage is quite a simple issue. The principle of religious freedom/ freedom of expression (please let me know if you don't support this principle, explaining why not) requires that people are allowed to express their religious beliefs in whatever way they wish. That is, to use your own words, "so long as it doesn't interfere with others."

You therefore have no more right to dictate if and how somebody can choose to get religiously married (in accordance with their religion... not in accordance with yours) than they have to dictate if and how you can get religiously married.

That's wrong on both counts. Firstly, it has nothing to do with religion. See above.
Secondly, I do have the right to participate in the lawmaking process of the country I live in. So, asked if I support homosexual marriage, the answer is no. And I have a perfect right to say so.

Religion is a form of personal expression, which each individual is entitled to, like all other forms of expression, "so long as it doesn't interfere with others." This does not mean that a SS couple can force an unwilling clergyman to give them a religious marriage... because to do so would violate the clergyman's religious freedom. I.E. the principle of religious freedom protects both the clergyman's and the SS couple's freedom to exercise their own religious views. Sorry to have laboured that but I wanted to be clear.

Once again, it has nothing to do with religious freedom. We are Christians because we love the truth, not because we like being religious.

LEGAL MARRIAGE:

Legal marriage on the other hand is simply a matter for each jurisdiction. The legal definition of marriage varies across the world and changes all the time. Polygamy is legal in almost 50 nations, so clearly the definition isn't 1 women and 1 man, nor is it universal or immutable. Any unequal treatment of citizens by the state without sound justification is definitionally, an arbitrary, invidious discrimination.

That doesn't make it right.

STEALING THE CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE:

The law isn't really owned by anybody (pretty sure it is an abstract concept). The concept of marriage and mode of its expression for most seems to be as the ultimate expression of commitment, love and companionship. These attributes are just as much present in many homosexual unions as heterosexual ones and unfortunately absent from some hetero ones, such that we would likely agree that they ideally should not marry.

SS marriage is actually an issue of equality, with marriage incidentally involved.

All you are doing here is seeking affirmation. You're just making vague statements in an attempt to argue that there is no point in having a specific definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

HOMOSEXUALITY AN ABNORMAL BEHAVIOUR?

Black people can call themselves white... but would simply be inaccurate in doing so. I can call myself purple with yellow blotches for instance ^^. If I missed the point there at all (as I'm not sure what you were getting at), please clarify.

Well, I thought it was rather obvious. And you actually make my point very well. You can say what you like but it doesn't change the fact that you are black (or white, etc.) You can call your relationship a marriage if you like but it isn't.

Sexual orientations (SOs), such as homosexuality,

What you are referring to is the sexual deviation of homosexuality. Homosexuality is an example of that.

are characterised by persistent romantic and/or sexual attractions to members of one or more of the two biological sexes. They are not behaviours. How do I know?

This has got nothing to do with marriage.

We would still classify a young individual who had not yet had the opportunity to act upon their attractions, or a celibate, as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. We would still classify a man who was raped by or who prostituted themselves to another man as heterosexual if they were exclusively attracted to women. Involuntary attractions are therefore necessary and sufficient to assign SO, while actions are neither. If you disagree, please explain how so.

I don't see what this has got to do with normality. We all have urges to do all sorts of wild things from time to time and we simply have to learn to control them.

I don't see the relevance of abnormality concerning homosexuality, any more than I do concerning the abnormally intelligent, kind or healthy.

There is a difference between unusual and abnormal. There is no point in legitimizing something that is abnormal.

 

[Truths4yer]

This response is to posts made by Grosnick Marowbe and CabinetMaker. Thanks for the replies.

I'll bet you're a lot of fun at a party?

I don't attend such events ^^. Never saw that one coming, I'm sure, hehe.



CabinetMaker

Hi. Welcome to the forum.
God says homosexuality is wrong and, therefore, immoral. That's it. I believe that God is real and that He is sovereign and gets to determine what is right and what it not. I trust Him to get it right.

Thanks. My next question would be to ask what good reason you have to believe that 1) a god exists and 2) that it is the God which you worship, which you seem to half-answer below anyhow.

My belief in God is is based purely on experience. It is sufficient for me. You will have to have your own experience.

I hope you are aware of the fallaciousness of anecdotal evidence and of confirmation bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

So, can you please elaborate about what specific experience(s) you have had which have convinced you of your god's existence?
Also, what do you think leads to the experiences of all the proponents of other religions who similarly base their theism on personal experiences?

Like it or not, God wrote His law on our hearts. That is why we have an instinctive knowledge of right and wrong. We are free to ignore it and say silly things like homosexuality is morally right, but we still have this instinctive sense of right and wrong.

I don't ignore anything when concluding that homosexuality is amoral (morally irrelevant), like heterosexuality. Both are involuntary and victimless, each of which is an independently sufficient criterion to guarantee that they aren't immoral.

People across the world have different perspectives on morality and don't appear to ignore anything while doing so. I abhor child genital mutilation for instance, as do many others, while some consider it either amoral or a moral requirement. In some Muslim countries, it is considered deeply immoral for a woman to venture outside without covering her hair. There is a whole spectrum of what dress-code exercises sufficient "modesty", ranging from cultures where it isn't really relevant at all to fundamentalist theocracies of the Abrahamic religions. So the idea of a universal, objective morality being written on our hearts doesn't seem to marry up with reality.

If God were other than He is, none of us would ever know for our moral compass would point in a different direction and we would never know otherwise.

Not sure exactly what you mean but if you mean to suggest that we would all have sporadically different moral compasses from one another, that doesn't seem to be the case. Certain things (E.G. murder, or theft) are intrinsically corrosive to the harmonious coexistence of members of a society and therefore unsurprisingly tend to be universally disapproved of. Ideas are also infectious so of course members of the same culture are likely to share similar moralities compared to members of different cultures.
Thanks for reading.

 

[Truths4yer]

Reply to GuySmiley

Reply to GuySmiley

This is a reply to GuySmiley's post.

What makes maximizing benefit for the collective and facilitating harmonious coexistence good? You see where this goes . . . it comes down to these things just being your personal opinion (given your presupposition that morality isn't objective.)

Your question is effectively "What makes maximising.... objectively good?" The problem with this question is that you are criticising my argument for its lack of objectivity yet, as you yourself note, from the start, I was not attempting to present an argument for an objectively true moral framework. I'll quote a particularly relevant part of my previous response immediately below:

My ethical framework offers no promise of universal justice because it does not offer false promises. It aspires to offer the best possible approach for promoting justice over injustice. Reality often requires that we make the best of an imperfect situation.

What I'm actually doing is describing a general set of moral principles which I think would give rise to the most successful society. Success being measured here in the well-being of a society's constituents. I'm therefore effectively trying to persuade you and any others who read to help to promote my (potentially our) utopian society. I also described the appropriate social/legal responses to those who decline, which are themselves part of/resultant from the ethical framework.

If blondes and brunettes think people with red hair should be slaves, then that is their personal opinion and you have no standing to say they are wrong besides that it doesn't maximize the benefit and facilitate a harmonious coexistence, which is also just your personal preference, so who cares.

I care, as likely do the blondes and brunettes and any other decent people. Yes, morality does appear to be a subjective human construct, so lets formulate the version which works the best for everybody.

I'm not claiming to be able to say "your view is objectively morally wrong". I am claiming to be able to say "your view is objectively detrimental to societal well-being". If that's not sufficient to stop their immorality then the pertinent response for one with my view is as I described in my previous post; exclusion to diminish overall harm.

(it really wouldn't happen in the real world) But that's because morality being objective fits with our life experience better than thinking its subjective.

Np, I don't mind. Conceptually possible hypothetical scenarios are perfectly adequate as a means of testing the consistency with which professed principals can/will be applied.



Your claim that morality is objective, relates directly to our earlier discussion, which I'll quote directly below. You are claiming to be able to prove claim 3 I believe. Please explain how so.

Subjective and objective moralists share the same first two claims but the objective moralist adds a third and therefore has the burden of proof for it.
1) People have a sense of morality.
2) This sense of morality varies from person to person.
3) One moral view is (objectively) correct, while all others therefore aren't.

I wont go line by line with the rest of the post because it'd just be to reiterate what I just said, and I like short conversations. :cheers:

Np, I appreciate that as I struggle with concision so it is good to have somebody to rein me in. Thanks for the reply.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Thanks. My next question would be to ask what good reason you have to believe that 1) a god exists and 2) that it is the God which you worship, which you seem to half-answer below anyhow.

I already answered this but the rest of your response indicates you didn't care for my answer. You even felt the need to belittle me for it. 1) Personal experiance
2) Faith

I hope you are aware of the fallaciousness of anecdotal evidence and of confirmation bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

I am aware that atheists attempt to use this argument to attempt to argue people out of their faith. I find the attempts lacking and unconvincing.

[wuote]So, can you please elaborate about what specific experience(s) you have had which have convinced you of your god's existence?[/quote] The one that convinced my happened not long after our daughter was born. I had long ago pitched the whole religion thing and God as well. But when our slaughter was born we decided to raise her in a church. It was a nondenominational church and I was concerned about being a hypocrit. So that morning I set aside all that religion has taught and asked God to show me who He is. I opened a loaner bible and started to read and for the first time it made perfect sense. God answered my prayer and I have never doubted His existence since that moment.

Also, what do you think leads to the experiences of all the proponents of other religions who similarly base their theism on personal experiences?

Satan is crafty and convincing, the father of lies. I believe he deceives people away from God.

I don't ignore anything when concluding that homosexuality is amoral (morally irrelevant), like heterosexuality. Both are involuntary and victimless, each of which is an independently sufficient criterion to guarantee that they aren't immoral.

You ignore what God says about it. I do not believe that sexual orientation is a choice. What is a choice is what you decide to do with it. Sex outside of a husband and wife is immoral. That means that heterosexual sex outside of marriage is no different than homosexual activity in the eyes of God. You may be gay but you to choose between having sex or having Jesus. That is a choice.

People across the world have different perspectives on morality and don't appear to ignore anything while doing so. I abhor child genital mutilation for instance, as do many others, while some consider it either amoral or a moral requirement. In some Muslim countries, it is considered deeply immoral for a woman to venture outside without covering her hair. There is a whole spectrum of what dress-code exercises sufficient "modesty", ranging from cultures where it isn't really relevant at all to fundamentalist theocracies of the Abrahamic religions. So the idea of a universal, objective morality being written on our hearts doesn't seem to marry up with reality.

I disagree. The most basic rules are written on our hearts. We are free to add to those laws as we choose. That doesn't mean that everything we add is good, but we are free to do it.

Not sure exactly what you mean but if you mean to suggest that we would all have sporadically different moral compasses from one another, that doesn't seem to be the case. Certain things (E.G. murder, or theft) are intrinsically corrosive to the harmonious coexistence of members of a society and therefore unsurprisingly tend to be universally disapproved of. Ideas are also infectious so of course members of the same culture are likely to share similar moralities compared to members of different cultures.
Thanks for reading.

That is not what I mean at all. What I mean is that if God had said that stealing was moral then it would never cross our mind that stealing should be anything other than moral. The laws that God wrote o. Our hearts are our most basic operating system. If it was programmed other than it is, we would never know it.

 

[Truths4yer]

This is a reply to Desert Reign's post.

But that is simply not true. Innocent until proven guilty applies to crimes. That is why the phrase 'moral legitimacy' is so loaded. The onus of proof lies on the accuser of a crime but immorality is not per se a crime.

Law reflects morality, with the ideal legal system being a direct mirror of the ideal moral system, wouldn't you agree? The whole point of the law is to implement justice. Any law which failed to do that would be unjust (I.E. immoral) as it would impose a restriction (on freedom) without justification. You seem to conflate legitimacy with legality and they are not identical terms, though, as described above, ideally should be mirrors of each other. When I say "moral legitimacy" I mean "moral acceptability". This is a definitionally accurate use of the term "legitimacy".

There is no onus of proof, neither did I condemn anyone because this is not about legitimacy.

There is always a burden of proof with any claim made within rational discourse, whether a conversation about morality, legality or anything else. Rational minds model their perception of reality based upon the evidence. This is why rational minds require evidence for any claim (in order to believe it, not as an optional afterthought).

I am sure you would like it to be because then you can argue how bad those awful people are who hate homosexuality. But that would be a straw man and really only yourself who would be deluded. And it would still be a straw man even if there are (as I am sure is the case) people out there who condemn homosexuality, because two wrongs don't make a right.

Your inaccurate speculation about what I might have wanted to argue does not equate to me actually arguing it and therefore straw manning you. Two wrongs don't make a right? Do you mean to suggest that it is immoral (wrong) to criticise somebody else for their immorality?

Well, that may be so, though I doubt it. Their main concern is to establish order and freedom and to protect the disadvantaged. Whether any of this is moral or not is just a bonus.

The law is to implement justice I.E. regulate conduct involving others in an equitable way. The law is directly antagonistic to freedom because it consists of specific limits on freedom but only on the freedom to harm others (perpetrate immorality). As the bible wisely notes, the law is (primarily) for the lawless. A legal system where morality is merely an optional bonus would be a very undesirable legal system indeed.

What you are doing is seeking legitimacy for homosexuality because you need affirmation. Like I said before, you are welcome to have a homosexual relationship so long as you keep it to yourselves. But don't come begging for me to tell you that you are doing anything terribly wonderful.

I do not require your approval. I require legal equality. No change in the law is advocated which requires you to attend same-sex weddings, waving a flag and cheering. Now who is straw manning? Why should a same-sex couple "keep it to themselves" any more than an opposite sex one? And what about a private family gathering between a same-sex couple and their loved ones equates to not "keeping it to themselves"?

ME: Most people who object to SS (legal) marriage
YOU: Well, then all you have to do is ask instead of just guessing... Otherwise you have yet another straw man. But I am fairly sure you will find most Christians tell you that marriage is marriage, whether religious or not. So it really is a straw man. We object to homosexual marriage because it is not marriage, not because we are religious.

Guessing what? And no it is not a straw man. If you mean I am straw manning your position on marriage, that seems irrelevant as I was describing general opposition to SS marriage, not your opposition to it. This was indicated when I said "Most people".

Your assertion that it is "not marriage" fails to address my points. It is an indisputable fact that there is "legal marriage", defined based upon the sum of the laws regulating it within any given jurisdiction. This is indisputably distinct from religious marriage, which is defined based upon the stipulations of an individual/ couple's religious views. These two forms of marriage can and do occur independently of each other. If you feel you can dispute it then explain how I am wrong rather than simply asserting your opinion please. Here is a quote to make the distinction between legal/religious marriage more obvious (it is referring exclusively to marriage, rather than all ceremonies btw):

"Since 1992 there have been more civil ceremonies in England and Wales than religious ceremonies. In 2009 civil ceremonies accounted for 67 per cent of all ceremonies, an increase from 62 per cent in 1999."

That's wrong on both counts. Firstly, it has nothing to do with religion. See above.

Yes it does.

"Americans who oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage, 46% of the adult population, are most likely to explain their position on the basis of religious beliefs".
http://www.gallup.com/poll/159089/religion-major-factor-americans-opposed-sex-marriage.aspx

Secondly, I do have the right to participate in the lawmaking process of the country I live in. So, asked if I support homosexual marriage, the answer is no. And I have a perfect right to say so.

Your right to make a judgement does not itself make that judgement justified and therefore right. That is what I am debating, not whether or not you have a right to make a judgement. This is the part where you would needlessly accuse me of making a straw man if you had responded to a point similar to the one I just did. You also continue to conflate legal and religious marriage in the above quote.

Once again, it has nothing to do with religious freedom. We are Christians because we love the truth, not because we like being religious.

I'm sure Muslims are Muslim because they love the truth too and Zoroastrians are Zoroastrian because they love the truth, likewise for Hindus, Mormons, Buddhists, Sikhs and worshippers of all of the other deities which are mutually inconsistent with yours.

All you are doing here is seeking affirmation. You're just making vague statements in an attempt to argue that there is no point in having a specific definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

Not really. It is an indisputable fact that there is not a specific definition of marriage as a union of a man and a women, as demonstrated by the legality of polygamy in almost 50 nations and even by its sanctioning within the bible (Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15–17).

And you actually make my point very well. You can say what you like but it doesn't change the fact that you are black (or white, etc.) You can call your relationship a marriage if you like but it isn't.

Except that marriage is subjectively constructed by humans and so is whatever we define it to be. Legal marriage is defined by the laws which involve it. Laws can and do change and unjust (arbitrarily discriminatory) ones should change.

What you are referring to is the sexual deviation of homosexuality. Homosexuality is an example of that.

The sexual deviation from the norm of homosexuals is as relevant as the intellectual deviation of Albert Einstein or Steven Hawking from the norm.

YOU: Homosexuality is abnormal behaviour.
ME: They are not behaviours. How do I know?
YOU: This has got nothing to do with marriage.

Correct. You raised a topic which was separate from the marriage topic and I responded to it.

ME: We would still classify a young individual who had not yet had the opportunity to act upon their attractions, or a celibate, as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. We would still classify a man who was raped by or who prostituted themselves to another man as heterosexual if they were exclusively attracted to women. Involuntary attractions are therefore necessary and sufficient to assign SO, while actions are neither. If you disagree, please explain how so.
YOU: I don't see what this has got to do with normality. We all have urges to do all sorts of wild things from time to time and we simply have to learn to control them.

It doesn't have anything to do with normality. It was a response to your claim that homosexuality is a behaviour. To refute you on the relevance of normality to moral legitimacy (not moral legality), I point out that some people are abnormally kind or healthy, demonstrating that abnormality is irrelevant to what is good/bad, morally or otherwise.

We do not have to control our responses to urges on the basis of them being "wild", we have to do so if they are immoral. This is therefore irrelevant to homosexuality, which is not immoral and consequently doesn't need to be "controlled" to any greater an extent than heterosexuality. If you're attempting to promote the notion that homosexuality can be changed then I'd recommend my two videos on the topic.
Ex-Gay leaders/founders themselves reject the movement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4DqhUjDc7Y
Over 30 examples of ex-ex-gays who spent years or decades trying unsuccessfully to change using a variety of methods (yes, including enormous amounts of prayer and bible study):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QntMgewZ90Y
That is all of course without me even getting in to the social science research on the topic.

There is a difference between unusual and abnormal. There is no point in legitimizing something that is abnormal.

Then please define "abnormal" and establish its relevance. The unjustified, meaningless negative connotation attached to the word does not magically justify itself.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Truths4yer, you seem to have an affinity for using the language
of a scholar/intellectual! Is this how you speak normally or are
you merely attempting to impress?

 

[Truths4yer]

Reply to CabinetMaker

Reply to CabinetMaker

This is a reply to CabinetMaker's post.

I already answered this but the rest of your response indicates you didn't care for my answer. You even felt the need to belittle me for it. 1) Personal experiance
2) Faith

I'm sorry if you felt belittled. I don't remember being especially rude and certainly could have been far more abrasive. Your answer wasn't very elaborative (so I sought clarification). I'll address faith here and personal experience later.

Faith is a fraudulent substitute for a good reason (to believe something). It is fraudulent in that is masquerades as a good reason when in fact, if you had a good reason, you simply wouldn't need faith in the first place (you'd just tell me the good reason instead). Faith is therefore the excuse given for believing things without any good reason (not a good reason in and of itself).

ME: I hope you are aware of the fallaciousness of anecdotal evidence and of confirmation bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
YOU: I am aware that atheists attempt to use this argument to attempt to argue people out of their faith. I find the attempts lacking and unconvincing.

I haven't seen any other atheists use such points tbh but they aren't atheistic arguments really but simply factual points/ observations about typical fallacious reasoning processes. They are exactly the kind of thing which scientific research aims to avoid/ eliminate and which consequently facilitates its accuracy, as apparent from its predictive reliability.

I'm not intending to instantly dive in to a science vs religion approach btw but am simply pointing out that the aforementioned considerations (the 2 links) are key to forming an accurate understanding of reality. Confirmation bias and anecdotal evidence aren't direct arguments against a belief but more just draw attention to potential sources of inaccuracy that might have given rise to incorrect beliefs. Both become extremely relevant when you say that "personal experience" is your basis for belief - particularly within the context of religion. Their applicability is determined by the specifics of the "personal experience" however.

ME: So, can you please elaborate about what specific experience(s) you have had which have convinced you of your god's existence?
YOU: But when our slaughter was born we decided to raise her in a church... So that morning I set aside all that religion has taught and asked God to show me who He is.

The decision to raise a child in a church isn't one made by an impartial mind. This is amplified 1000 fold by your second sentence here. You claim to have set aside all religion taught you yet this is immediately contradicted not only by the fact that you asked a deity to reveal itself to you... but in that it just so happened to be the deity which predominates in the culture in which you happen to have been born. Do you truly believe you would likely have asked "God" to reveal itself to you had you been in a culture where another deity predominated or where "God" hadn't even been heard of? Would it be a bible you had opened or perhaps another holy book. Perhaps you would have peered in to the entrails of a dead animal, looking for signs.

An impartial, rational mind does not ask a deity to reveal itself to it in the first place, any more than we ask Zeus, Odin or Anubis to reveal themselves to us or even the tooth fairy. This indicates that confirmation bias is quite likely to have played a significant role.

I opened a loaner bible and started to read and for the first time it made perfect sense. God answered my prayer and I have never doubted His existence since that moment.

As Muslims open the Quran and find it makes sense, likewise for Hindus and the Vedas etc etc. This isn't belittling but rather pointing out that there is no apparent rational distinction between your miraculous revelation and that of many proponents of any other religion. Only one religion can be correct (or none), which means that the vast majority of people who believe things on the basis of experiences such as yours are necessarily incorrect. This strongly indicates that it is a very poor/unreliable reason to believe anything.

Many others have read the bible without gaining any specific information which makes Christianity undeniably correct. What critically relevant information did you obtain?

ME: Also, what do you think leads to the experiences of all the proponents of other religions who similarly base their theism on personal experiences?
YOU: Satan is crafty and convincing, the father of lies. I believe he deceives people away from God.

Apparently far more competently so than omnipotent, omniscient God, who wants us to know and love him, yet is unable or unwilling to make his presence known, given that the vast majority of people aren't Christian, let alone of your particular denomination. How do you know that it isn't the "Satan" equivalent of another religion which isn't deceiving you away from recognition of the true god instead?

ME: I don't ignore anything when concluding that homosexuality is amoral (morally irrelevant), like heterosexuality. Both are involuntary and victimless, each of which is an independently sufficient criterion to guarantee that they aren't immoral.
YOU: You ignore what God says about it.

I don't ignore any gods. I actively debate with people who tell me that the god which they believe exists disapproves of homosexuality, according to them. I no more ignore what God says than a Christian person ignores what Allah says when they eat pork.

I do not believe that sexual orientation is a choice. What is a choice is what you decide to do with it. Sex outside of a husband and wife is immoral. That means that heterosexual sex outside of marriage is no different than homosexual activity in the eyes of God. You may be gay but you to choose between having sex or having Jesus. That is a choice.

I'm glad you realise that. What non-consenting individual is inherently victimised by sex before marriage? If the condemnation is independent of victimisation, is it not then arbitrary?

I disagree. The most basic rules are written on our hearts. We are free to add to those laws as we choose. That doesn't mean that everything we add is good, but we are free to do it.

To clarify, nothing is written on our hearts. It pumps blood and wouldn't even be known about (as an organ) were it not for rational, empirically-based investigation.
We share some common rules, as I described, because they are quite clearly prohibitions of intrinsically detrimental activities. To say that "we are free to add to those" does not negate the fact that morality differs from culture to culture, deviating substantially from the commands of the deity you worship, which refutes your original claim that:

Like it or not, God wrote His law on our hearts. That is why we have an instinctive knowledge of right and wrong.

That is not what I mean at all. What I mean is that if God had said that stealing was moral then it would never cross our mind that stealing should be anything other than moral. The laws that God wrote o. Our hearts are our most basic operating system. If it was programmed other than it is, we would never know it.

So you really think that human society plodded along for thousands of years (even taking a biblical chronology of our species) and until your deity made the ground-braking announcement that stealing was wrong, people would steal from each other all the time, with nobody ever claiming it was wrong to do so?

We're well aware that slavery (owning people as property, especially for life) is wrong, yet the bible overtly sanctions it.

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you"..."and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life.

Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[Truths4yer]

Reply to Grosnick Marowbe

Reply to Grosnick Marowbe

Truths4yer, you seem to have an affinity for using the language of a scholar/intellectual! Is this how you speak normally or are you merely attempting to impress?

I aim to exude articulacy, except perhaps when tired or engaged in particularly informal communication, as I see this as being conducive to both accurate communication and to the elevation of my own intellect. In other words, I challenge myself to some extent in order to foster improvement of my default abilities. If everybody were able to communicate as an intellectual then we would be a species of intellectuals, which would surely be an advancement.

Eloquence can also diminish monotony. If people are impressed then perhaps that is a bonus, though I would rather impress them with the meaning I convey than the manner in which I convey it.

EDIT:
Articulacy can also greatly assist in obtaining an audience, therefore enhancing the promulgation of my views and potentially increasing the number of challenges to them, refining my own perspective as unsustainable ideas fall away.

 

[PureX]

In a sense, I regard all objectivity to be indemonstrable, whether or not we can have beliefs which just so happen to be objectively true.

Anyhow, regarding morality, it only seems useful as a system/ideology for facilitating harmonious (and ideally happy) coexistence between conscious entities (us).

Only? It seems to me that harmonious coexistence is an elemental necessity for the continued existence of any life form, and particularly for life forms that employ the tactic of cooperation as an existential strategy. Harmonious coexistence would be an apt definition of the fundamental boundaries of any 'biological niche', as well as of any effective form of cooperative interaction.

With this in mind, the most effective means of achieving this can be rationally derived and inferior approaches can therefore be rationally rejected.

Actually, it would appear that the most effective means of obtaining and maintaining harmonious coexistence both within species and among them is not conscious rationality, but biochemistry. Insect colonies display far more harmonious coexistence than human colonies do, for example. And genetically induced behavioral patterns are far more widespread and effective than any consciously rationalized behaviors.

I'm just saying that I think you have seriously minimized the elemental importance of harmonious coexistence, and perhaps overlooked it's more "objective" expressions.

The moment we agree that the core objective of morality should centre around promoting our mutual well-being, we develop a quasi-objective morality, whereby every further judgement is "objectively" correct or incorrect with regards to that principle. I.E. we agree on the foundational principle so it is not necessary to debate as long as we are only interacting with like-minded individuals.

It's only "quasi-objective" from the abstract perspective of human self-consciousness. On the purely biological level, where it originates and rules, there's nothing quasi about it. Morality is not just an intellectual overview that we humans apply to our experience of reality, it's an intellectual reflection of the very biology that allows consciousness (and intellect) to happen. Morality is built into our consciousness just as sexual lust and hunger and thirst, are.

A further means of analysing the efficacy of a system of morality is to identify any inconsistencies in its application. Any good moral ideology should incorporate consistently applicable principles and therefore exclude any arbitrary condemnations. Consistency is key to rationality. If it turns out that we cannot have a consistently applicable system of morality for whatever reason, then we may even have to resign ourselves to favouring the least inconsistent.

I agree with most of what your posting, but I think your vision is too narrow.

Consistency is all well and good, but so is adaptability. And in fact, in studying the ideal of 'quality', Robert Pirsig points out in his book "Lila" that the ultimate ideal in terms of quality is a condition-specific balance between strength (integrity, consistency, etc.) and adaptability (reactivity, interactivity, etc.). He used a carbon molecule as his example, but I'm sure the same could be said of intellectual rationale.

To give a simplified example of consistency: Murder, theft and rape are wrong as they involve deliberately harming other conscious entities (bad for harmonious coexistence). Homosexuality is not because it does not (it is victimless, ergo irrelevant to harmonious coexistence). I see immorality as being very much harm/victim based anyhow as any system opposed to victimisation (of anybody) protects everybody (including you/me). Doesn't that sound like a system you'd like to promote?

Yes, but again, this is condition-specific. If we include the quality of adaptability with the quality of consistency as part of the ideal, then killing, robbing and raping other human beings cannot ALWAYS be considered immoral. We must allow that there can be circumstances under which these become morality acceptable acts.

I don't disagree with your observations, I'm just offering some comments that may help to broaden your views.

Also, I didn't mean to appear so myopic in responding to your previous comment with the YouTube video of Steve Earle. I'm an artist, and I really do believe that there are a great many ideas and experiences that cannot be fully or effectively conveyed by written text, and that are far better expressed by these other creative means.

That video at that time may not have been an especially good example, however.