A Critique on Objective Morality

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6351
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re:

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Apr 12, 2016 4:20 pm

henry quirk wrote:I think you're making too much of it. Dicks are gonna be dicks. Rationality got nuthin' to do with it. The dick, obviously, don't give a shit what his or her opponent thinks. If the oppenent doesn't agree with the dick, and has the nerve to stand his or her ground, the dick does what he or she does: be a dick..
Actually, I would suggest the insulter very much cares what his opponent thinks: he wants his opponent to think he's objectively a "hypocrite," a "self-righteous prig," or whatever; and he wants his opponent to agree that it is objectively wrong for him to be that.

Otherwise, nothing's insulting about an insult.

But we can leave it at that.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Obvious Leo » Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:40 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: Nothing direct, since the tradition did not even exist in Biblical times. But the whole human rights tradition, including the right of little girls not to be mutilated, derives from thence.
The bible clearly insists that the genitals of little boys be mutilated so on what logical grounds should this commandment not be extended to little girls? Kindly explain the "objective" difference.

uwot
Posts: 4374
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by uwot » Wed Apr 13, 2016 7:44 am

Immanuel Can wrote:So now, you're saying the law is also immoral? Or you're saying "Whatever the law says is always right?" What is the claim you wish to advance?
The law and morality are different things. People have to vote and sometimes fight for the laws they want, because whatever the law says is not always right. As we are constantly discovering, if you leave law making to others, they will make laws that suit themselves, regardless of any morality.
Immanuel Can wrote:All the laws in the pre-Civil War American south were in favour of slavery. Did that make it the right thing to do?
uwot wrote:No, Immanuel; the right thing to do was to change the law. Haven't you heard? That's what happened.
Irrelevant to the question.
It was your question, Immanuel.
Immanuel Can wrote:After all, slavery still exists elsewhere, and now more brutally than at any time in history. That's what happened. But even if it hadn't, the question is whether or not THOSE laws were right. And you've ducked that one.
Really? What do you think the words "the right thing to do was to change the law" mean?
Immanuel Can wrote:
uwot wrote:So, Immanuel Can, what exactly does your god say about female genital mutilation?
Nothing direct, since the tradition did not even exist in Biblical times.
You don't know that. We do know that slavery existed.
Immanuel Can wrote:But the whole human rights tradition, including the right of little girls not to be mutilated, derives from thence.
That is simply not true. The bible condones slavery:
The loony responsible for Leviticus 25 wrote:Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Immanuel Can wrote:But that's a red herring. The question here is not about FGM in Somalia, which only comes in as an example, but whether or not we can say that ANYTHING, including FGM and slavery, is ever really "wrong."

Without objective morality, we can surely "say" it, but it won't be justifiable by any means.
We cannot rely on the bible in the case of FGM, and according to the bible we shalt have slaves. Your morality does not come from the bible; at most it comes from the parts you have chosen to adopt, to fit the image of a god that you have created yourself. Face it: you are not a moral agent because you do what god says, it is because you make your own decisions.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6351
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:15 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:The bible clearly insists that the genitals of little boys be mutilated so on what logical grounds should this commandment not be extended to little girls? Kindly explain the "objective" difference.
Heh. Well, I could give you a primer on the difference between a bris and a female genital mutilation, but I'm not sure everybody who might read it has the stomach. Fortunately, you could just look it up. You won't be in doubt of the distinction, trust me.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Obvious Leo » Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:22 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Obvious Leo wrote:The bible clearly insists that the genitals of little boys be mutilated so on what logical grounds should this commandment not be extended to little girls? Kindly explain the "objective" difference.
Heh. Well, I could give you a primer on the difference between a bris and a female genital mutilation, but I'm not sure everybody who might read it has the stomach. Fortunately, you could just look it up. You won't be in doubt of the distinction, trust me.
Try not to be a prat by presuming to offer me a tutorial in biology. I asked for a logical explanation for why the two practices should be regarded as morally distinct.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6351
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:28 pm

uwot wrote:Really? What do you think the words "the right thing to do was to change the law" mean?
Well, it would mean you were really a moral objectivist. Because then you would be prioritizing the "right" over the "law."

If that's where you stand, then fine: I now understand which of your statements you consider primary.
Face it: you are not a moral agent because you do what god says, it is because you make your own decisions.
We can argue that, if you like.

But before we do, notice this: that you've conceded objective morality by claiming that "making one's own decisions" has universal moral value. Now, you and I can debate the Authority behind such a precept, but that's a step 2. In step 1, you've already conceded the universal moral objectivity of at least one precept.

And if that's right, then now you are faced with this question: "What assures us that 'make your own decisions' actually IS a universal moral imperative?" Some people say, "Stay in the herd" is the most important thing. Others say "Walk within tradition." Still others say "Follow the leader" is the primary moral imperative. And these would be incompatible with "making one's own decisions," of course.

So how do you defend your prime directive, Captain Kirk? :D

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6351
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:31 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:Try not to be a prat by presuming to offer me a tutorial in biology.
If you knew the difference, why would you have asked the question? I was just taking you seriously.
I asked for a logical explanation for why the two practices should be regarded as morally distinct.
That's like the difference between cutting someone's hair and severing their limbs. If you understand the nature of the action, the moral distinction isn't in doubt.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Obvious Leo » Wed Apr 13, 2016 1:00 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:That's like the difference between cutting someone's hair and severing their limbs.
No it isn't. The moral issue being considered is one of mutilating the genitals of children without their informed consent. Why is it OK to do this to boys and not to girls? Kindly answer this question in the context of your stated view that morality is an objective construct.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Wed Apr 13, 2016 1:08 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:
Immanuel Can wrote:That's like the difference between cutting someone's hair and severing their limbs.
No it isn't. The moral issue being considered is one of mutilating the genitals of children without their informed consent. Why is it OK to do this to boys and not to girls? Kindly answer this question in the context of your stated view that morality is an objective construct.
It simply means that IC is objectively wrong to allow boys to be mutilated and not girls; if objective morality is true.
OR
It means that IC is wrong about objective morality if it is okay for boys to be mutilated and not girls.

Either way IC is wrong not to make a universal case against the mutilation of children without informed consent.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6351
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Apr 13, 2016 2:50 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:No it isn't. The moral issue being considered is one of mutilating the genitals of children without their informed consent. Why is it OK to do this to boys and not to girls? Kindly answer this question in the context of your stated view that morality is an objective construct.
For the particulars of the bris, consult your local rabbi. For the particulars of female genital mutilation, consult a Feminist...or better still, Ayaan Hirsi Ali's account of hers in her biography. That will clear up any misunderstandings.

Meanwhile, if the thing disturbing you is that neither is consensual, then you would be asserting that consent is a universal, objective moral value.

And you'd have to prove it.

uwot
Posts: 4374
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by uwot » Wed Apr 13, 2016 3:01 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:...notice this: that you've conceded objective morality by claiming that "making one's own decisions" has universal moral value.
Don't be silly. "making one's own decisions" does not have moral value; it is the decisions you make. If you are incapable of making your own choices, it is generally accepted that you are not morally responsible.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6351
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Apr 13, 2016 3:28 pm

uwot wrote:
Immanuel Can wrote:...notice this: that you've conceded objective morality by claiming that "making one's own decisions" has universal moral value.
Don't be silly. "making one's own decisions" does not have moral value; it is the decisions you make.
In that case, you have left yourself with no right to speak against someone who denies someone else their rights...in particular, the right to make their own decisions. And in that case, you can have nothing but a personal objection to both FGM and the bris. Personal objections are merely personal.

You need a universal axiom or, by definition, no one else in the world is either rationally or morally obliged to pay any attention to your preference.
If you are incapable of making your own choices, it is generally accepted that you are not morally responsible.
Yes, that is quite true. The axiom goes, "Ought implies can." But babies cannot make moral or even personal choices, and must rely on the wisdom of their parents until they are of age. For example, if we wait for them to "decide" to feed themselves, they'll all starve. In contrast, young women can; and the societies which enforce FGM certainly are composed of adult males who also can.


User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Wed Apr 13, 2016 4:10 pm

Judge for yourself.

Tell me this operation is morally acceptable or even useful?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyzlZn4FJPU

Traditionally, rabbis, do not even use anaesthetic, and still use their mouths to suck the cock to clean the blood.


Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests