The Rape of the Truth–The Second Pillar of Secular Humanism - Page 2 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

liberty1776 · #16 (**permalink**) 07-18-2007

[quote=drgoodtrips;1037669]That's true. I inferred it from the tone of the words. David Duke doesn't say that he hates blacks either. I tend to make quick judgments and apologize/readily admit when I'm wrong. It saves time - normally, if it walks, quacks and shits like a duck, it's a duck. Why waste time proving it, unless specifically asked to? People can play semantics games with their words until the cows come a'marchin' home, but the spirit and letter may be readily apparent.
[quote]
It might save time, but I have been accused of being many things because I take oppinions which you would probably interpret as being racist. I do not believe that there should be laws that prohibit business owners from disallowing blacks into their resatraunts. This is an oppinion (and oppinions like it) I espoused much in my Contemporary Issues class, and as a result I was forced to take sensitivity training.

Quote:

lol... Since the essence of a straw-man argument is arguing with and destroying the man of straw, I think we might reasonably conclude that you're introducing an important-sounding term without much concern for its actual meaning. Again, snap judgments, on my part, and apologies in advance if I've misjudged you. I doubt I have, however. I mean, "straw-man" does sound impressive to a philistine like me.

I never said that you created made a straw-man argument; I said you created a straw-man. My argument was that you ascribed views to someone else (created a straw-man) and then didn't even argue against the straw-man.

Again, you have created a straw-man. You ascribed a view to me (that I thought you made a straw-man argument) and argued against it. This time, you did make a straw-man, and did argue against it.

Quote:

My opinion, based on the post, is that this is a guy who finds homosexuals icky and Muslims threatening. That's an opinion, not a "straw-man". I also like jazz music. That's also an opinion, and not a "straw-man". My post would have been a "straw-man" had I gone on to discuss why hating Muslims and homosexuals is bad for society, or some such thing.

As it is, I'm trying to discern what, if anything the author is trying to say.

The first several paragraphs are (apparently) contention with the idea that reality (read: "moral reality" - I'm guessing that the author isn't concerned with whether or not we all like strawberry ice cream) is subjective. He seems to sum it up with a cumbersome allusion to an analogue of the paradox "If we can never really know anything, how do you know that?", which sounds like it came straight out of a hippie session at the beach.

Then, with a whiplash-inducing segue, he begins to talk about how homosexuals receive special treatment, which does not follow, logically, from a discussion about the nature of whether morality is subjective or objective. In fact, it could well be that God, or whoever has authored moral objectivity, has decided that homosexuals ought to receive special treatment, which would obviously make his whining a bit damning to his own argument. (Or, on the flip side of the coin, He could have created a morality in which homosexuals ought to be executed on sight, which would, again, constitute "special" treatment) He calls this an "example" of the problem with the "error" of subjective morality, but that's nonsensical. Of course, he goes on in a retroactive attempt to link the two by declaring "Equal Treatment Under the Law" to be an unimpeachable example of an "objective truth", but this is begging the question. In order to accept his conclusion (there is objective truth), we need to assume the conclusion (there is objective truth and one example is "Equal Protection Under the Law").

Of course, the most ironic part is that we're treated to a defense of racial profiling in the very next paragraph. So much for objective reality...

So maybe there was some non-sequitor, I can't say for sure. I think I have made a personal response regarding, essentialy, my view on this. It is in a later post.

liberty1776 · #17 (**permalink**) 07-18-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Hmm... this is far more interesting than the swill in the OP. I'll have to address this later, when I have a bit more time on my hands.

Oh, and true to my word, I retract my presumptions about you in my previous post. I appear to have underestimated you in earnest

Thank you very much, I am interested in the response.

Captain Trips · #18 (**permalink**) 07-18-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Meh... liberty's post has piqued my interest, so you'll excuse me if I don't address what appears to be a bunch of ideas and terms borrowed from my lexicon and thrown back at me randomly.

If you have any ideas outside of defending something that doesn't interest me, I'll be much more inclined to address them. When you dump articles on the forum and then defend them unquestioningly, I tend to bore easily.

Yes, I know :-)

It's ok. I do too. Probably for minutely different reasons though :-)

liberty1776 · #19 (**permalink**) 07-18-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Very quickly, liberty, just to clarify something...

Do you believe that moral objectivity exists where it does "just because" or do you believe that there is a logical framework that can categorically support certain propositions without exception (i.e. "self-ownership")?

I think there is a logical framework. In, The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard makes the argument based, in large part, on human nature. His basic argument is that it is Human nature to own oneself, although his argument is much more in depth.

This is not as appealing to me as other arguments. I prefer the agument that self-ownership is the only logical alternitive. If people did not own themselves, there are only two alternitives:

1. No one owns anyone.
2. Someone (or a group of people) owns everyone else.

If the first was true, then no one would have the right to do anything. This would mean that humans would have to cease to exist.

If the second was true, then we have two problems. First, why do these people get to rule over the others? It would seem difficult to arrive at this conclusion. Second, even if we can somehow create a scenario in which one group of people does own another group, we have another problem. How would anyone be able to do anything? The ruled class would have to get the permission of the ruling class to do anything. But in order to get permission, the ruled class would have to do something, such as ask for permission. But asking permission would be doing something. So, it would be impossible for the ruled class to do anything.

Captain Trips · #20 (**permalink**) 07-18-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by liberty1776

---------------------------------------

If the second was true, then we have two problems. First, why do these people get to rule over the others? It would seem difficult to arrive at this conclusion. Second, even if we can somehow create a scenario in which one group of people does own another group, we have another problem. How would anyone be able to do anything? The ruled class would have to get the permission of the ruling class to do anything. But in order to get permission, the ruled class would have to do something, such as ask for permission. But asking permission would be doing something. So, it would be impossible for the ruled class to do anything.

Doesn't this sound, in ways, the way things are GOING today in America ?

Don't we have to ask permission to do almost everything now ? We have the mandarins that call themselves our govt. and lawyers making laws and MORE laws to hinder us at nearly every turn.

Now, one can't even go into a BAR (a place of vice obviously) and have a stinkin' CIGARETTE.

MareTranquility · #21 (**permalink**) 07-18-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cap'n Trips

...by definition, change is GOOD.

In your case I think that ANY CHANGE would be refreshing, if not necessarily "good". You keep on posting long-winded cut and paste diatribes about "liberals" interspersed with your same bleating-sheeple comments. Read a new book, have a new thought, amaze us all by posting something constructive in place of your ascerbic drivel endlessly condemning a group of people you can't even definitively describe.

We all know you hate liberals and queers, is there anyone you love? Why not post something postive? Tell us about an epiphany that opened your eyes to our shared humanity or tell us how you turned the other cheek the way Jesus said to, or give us an example of you returning good for evil. Surely something positive has happened in your life.

Captain Trips · #22 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by MareTranquility

In your case I think that ANY CHANGE would be refreshing, if not necessarily "good". You keep on posting long-winded cut and paste diatribes about "liberals" interspersed with your same bleating-sheeple comments. Read a new book, have a new thought, amaze us all by posting something constructive in place of your ascerbic drivel endlessly condemning a group of people you can't even definitively describe.

We all know you hate liberals and queers, is there anyone you love? Why not post something postive? Tell us about an epiphany that opened your eyes to our shared humanity or tell us how you turned the other cheek the way Jesus said to, or give us an example of you returning good for evil. Surely something positive has happened in your life.

Don't you have someone else to try to bait and troll with your smart ass, smarmy non-sense ?

drgoodtrips · #23 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by liberty1776

I, too, believe that there is an objective morality, but I don't believe that we, as a society, practice (or hold) these objective morals. In fact, I think we are quite a bit off the mark. These objective morals have existed throughout human history.

In short, the objective morals is based on one's right to own himself. From this, we can come to a remarkable number of conclusions, all of which are based on logical progression from the fact that everyone owns his or her body.

In my oppinion, the worshipng of sun gods and the like, falls under what may be termed subjective morality, or religious morality. These are morals that each person holds indivdually. It may be true that many people hold many of the same sunjective morals, but this, in no way meants that they are objective morals. For example, as a Christian, I believe that it is immoral for me to covet. However, this does not violate anyone's right to own his own person. Therefor, this is a subjective moral.

Subjective morals are based on what one deems to be good or bad. Both of these terms are subjective. They describe the way that an evaluator feels about something. Nothing can be objectivly good or bad. The only objective thing we can say is that an action is either objectivly moral or immoral.

For example, imgaine a situation in which A is drowning and B is standing next to a life raft. If B does not throw the life raft to A, it might be said that B has done something bad by not acting. This, however, is incorrect. Because "bad" is subjective, we cannot say that this action (or in this case, non-action) is bad. To A, it might have been bad, but to B, it was good.

Further, we cannot say that this action is objectivly immoral because B did not violate anyone's property rights. We can, however, say that it might be subjectivly immoral. According to the subjective morals of the populace, B has done wrong. We may refuse to trade with him or talk to him.

Now, let's change the situation and have B throw the life raft to A. Assuming that A wants the life raft, we might be inclined to say that this is an objectvly good action. After all, if B had not wanted to throw the raft to A, he wouldn't have, and if A had not wanted the raft, he wouldn't have taken it. Because both A and B agree that the throwing the raft is a good thing, some may be led to believe that the action of throwing the raft was an objevtvly good thing. However, it may be possible that A goes on to kill 20 innocent people. The families of those who were killed might have a very different oppinion of the goodness of the action of throwing the raft.

It sounds to me as if you're leaving value-based evaluations of people's actions in the realm of the subjective. Any particular action being "good" or "bad" depends on the observer, and thus the evaluation of actions is inherently subjective (and "relative" - sorry, Thane).

But, it sounds as if you're describing not objective morality, but objective rights. Each person has a right to "own" himself, and (following logically), not to be owned by another person, not to be harmed by another person, etc. Whether violating these rights is "good" or "bad" is a subjective opinion, but what is "objective" is that these rights have been violated. As such, you would evaluate the objective side of things in terms of whether or not the rights are upheld.

Is this a fair assessment of your position?

If so, how do we arrive at those rights? I see that, in a subsequent post, you seem to argue that they "make sense" by creating a mutually exclusive set of scenarios and finding fault with all but the individual ownership proposition. Ergo, by process of elimination, we have your proposal.

But, what if there is no concept of "ownership" in the first place? Does this invalidate any objective morality? And, what about issues unrelated to ownership? To use your example, if I'm standing there with the means to save a life (all things being equal - say it was a stranger) and I choose not to, in your scenario, objective morality has nothing to say about this (ownership is not involved). However, you state that you're a Christian. In Christianity, God is most certainly the arbiter of objective morality, and my guess is that He would certainly have an opinion about that.

I suppose what I'm driving at is that your objective morality seems incomplete. Do you think that, if an objective morality exists it must be all-encompassing? Or are there instances where we do not care what Jesus would do (a bit of humor - not taking a shot at you)?

wrxsti · #24 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007

Being a True Christian (tm), I do not overly concern myself with the immoral day to day activities of the liberal secularists. I content myself in the knowledge that anyone who believes differently than myself will burn in hell for an eternity; more than ample payback.

Captain Trips · #25 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007

Reminds me of an old Twisted Sister song.

"Your gonna burn in hell.

Oh burn in he-e-e-e-llll...."

Good stuff :-)

Who know it was about the liberals of the next millenia when it came out :-)

MareTranquility · #26 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Don't you have someone else to try to bait and troll with your smart ass, smarmy non-sense ?

Don't you? I'm not the one starting troll-bait, cut and paste threads. I think you state your purpose here very succinctly in this part of your post from another thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Most of us are here only to entertain ourselves.
__________________
A coward judges all he sees by what he is.

MareTranquility · #27 (**permalink**) 07-19-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrxsti

Being a True Christian (tm), I do not overly concern myself with the immoral day to day activities of the liberal secularists. I content myself in the knowledge that anyone who believes differently than myself will burn in hell for an eternity; more than ample payback.

Nothing like a little satire to lighten up a dull thread. Thanks!

Dilettante · #28 (**permalink**) 07-20-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

But, it sounds as if you're describing not objective morality, but objective rights. Each person has a right to "own" himself, and (following logically), not to be owned by another person, not to be harmed by another person, etc. Whether violating these rights is "good" or "bad" is a subjective opinion, but what is "objective" is that these rights have been violated.

I know that you're only paraphrasing Liberty here, so perhaps this is equally aimed at him, but isn't saying something is a "right" the same as saying that it is "wrong/bad" to violate it? For example, if saying I have a "right to life" doesn't mean "it is bad/wrong for you to take life from me; I.E. it is something you should not do" then what does it mean?

I suppose I don't see how it would be possible to separate "good" and "bad" (and, hence, "right" and "wrong") from the concept of "rights" or "morals" and have anything left over. Consequentially, wouldn't asserting an objective "right" (be it a right to self-ownership or anything else) be implicitly asserting an objective "good and bad" morality?

White Rabbit · #29 (**permalink**) 07-20-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilettante

I know that you're only paraphrasing Liberty here, so perhaps this is equally aimed at him, but isn't saying something is a "right" the same as saying that it is "wrong/bad" to violate it? For example, if saying I have a "right to life" doesn't mean "it is bad/wrong for you to take life from me; I.E. it is something you should not do" then what does it mean?

I suppose I don't see how it would be possible to separate "good" and "bad" (and, hence, "right" and "wrong") from the concept of "rights" or "morals" and have anything left over. Consequentially, wouldn't asserting an objective "right" (be it a right to self-ownership or anything else) be implicitly asserting an objective "good and bad" morality?

Excellent post. I agree with several of the points you raise.

drgoodtrips · #30 (**permalink**) 07-20-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilettante

I know that you're only paraphrasing Liberty here, so perhaps this is equally aimed at him, but isn't saying something is a "right" the same as saying that it is "wrong/bad" to violate it? For example, if saying I have a "right to life" doesn't mean "it is bad/wrong for you to take life from me; I.E. it is something you should not do" then what does it mean?

I suppose I don't see how it would be possible to separate "good" and "bad" (and, hence, "right" and "wrong") from the concept of "rights" or "morals" and have anything left over. Consequentially, wouldn't asserting an objective "right" (be it a right to self-ownership or anything else) be implicitly asserting an objective "good and bad" morality?

Seems reasonable to me. I would like to be clear that I was indeed paraphrasing, and not expressing an opinion or point of view.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode