Magox Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 So your position is that a thing becomes moral as soon as a majority of elected officials make it permissible? That the State cannot act immorally assuming what it does is though the electoral and legislative process? What I believe is that within this Democracy and the system we have today, that I know that in order for new taxes to come about, it has to pass the house, the senate and signed off by the US president. If they make a decision that is against the will of the American public, I recognize that we live in a Democracy that will hold those politicians accountable and with that course correction will come about new policies. I accept the way our Democracy is crafted. I don't believe it to be perfect but I do recognize that our system relative to virtually any other country gives more power to the individual than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Ask the State. Apparently you believe they are allowed to point a gun at me. Since we cannot invent a time machine and uninvent WMD's, the only moral solution to a State who has taken aim at every citizen is for them to have that reciprocated/ The purpose of a weapon of mass destruction is to bring a state to it's knees through the mass slaughter of it's citizens. You cannot point a weapon of mass destruction at the State, you have to point it at everyone, and just as libertarian philosophy does not permit for you to point, much less shoot, a gun at someone who is not in violation of your rights, it also does not allow you to do far worse with weaponry far more deadly in scope. What I believe is that within this Democracy and the system we have today, that I know that in order for new taxes to come about, it has to pass the house, the senate and signed off by the US president. If they make a decision that is against the will of the American public, I recognize that we live in a Democracy that will hold those politicians accountable and with that course correction will come about new policies. I accept the way our Democracy is crafted. I don't believe it to be perfect but I do recognize that our system relative to virtually any other country gives more power to the individual than others. You are standing the principles of a free nation on it's head. Our country does not give power to individuals. Individuals give power to the State. It speaks volumes that your argument hinges entirely on an interpretation of our Founding document which entrusts the government with virtually unlimited power. For a government to be just, it must first be moral. For a government to be moral it must first and foremost protect the freedoms of it's individual citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 What I believe is that within this Democracy and the system we have today, that I know that in order for new taxes to come about, it has to pass the house, the senate and signed off by the US president. If they make a decision that is against the will of the American public, I recognize that we live in a Democracy that will hold those politicians accountable and with that course correction will come about new policies. I accept the way our Democracy is crafted. I don't believe it to be perfect but I do recognize that our system relative to virtually any other country gives more power to the individual than others. That would make the ACA AND any nationalistic-based reform that goes through the proper channels moral, then? The purpose of a weapon of mass destruction is to bring a state to it's knees through the mass slaughter of it's citizens. You cannot point a weapon of mass destruction at the State, you have to point it at everyone, and just as libertarian philosophy does not permit for you to point, much less shoot, a gun at someone who is not in violation of your rights, it also does not allow you to do far worse with weaponry far more deadly in scope. Then the only moral course of action would be the immediate disarmament of all WMD's but the State. Until that day comes, the private citizen will have a gun pointed at their head with no reciprocation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Magox doesn't argue morality, he argues from a basis of pragmatism. Morality is subjective, what I believe to be morally correct maybe something that you don't believe to be just and vice versa. Whereas pragmatism, for me is the search to properly assess truth in meaning of a belief and apply that in practical terms. To me that is logical. You are standing the principles of a free nation on it's head. Our country does not give power to individuals. Individuals give power to the State. It speaks volumes that your argument hinges entirely on an interpretation of our Founding document which entrusts the government with virtually unlimited power. For a government to be just, it must first be moral. For a government to be moral it must first and foremost protect the freedoms of it's individual citizens. We are going to go round and round here, so to avoid repeating myself. I believe we will have to simply agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Then the only moral course of action would be the immediate disarmament of all WMD's but the State. Until that day comes, the private citizen will have a gun pointed at their head with no reciprocation. The primary purpose of the State is to protect the rights of it's citizens, and to protect the structure which protects the rights of it's citizens (the nation state itself). How can the State protect the rights of it's citizens if it is overwhelmed militarily by another nation state possessing superior weaponry? It cannot. Again, you cannot aim a weapon of mass destruction at the State. You can only aim it at mass amounts of innocent citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Morality is subjective, what I believe to be morally correct maybe something that you don't believe to be just and vice versa. Whereas pragmatism, for me is the search to properly assess truth in meaning of a belief and apply that in practical terms. To me that is logical. Well I fundamentally disagree with that. I believe in one universal morality. Claiming morality is subjective gives carte blanche to anyone under the sun to do whatever they want. Further more, to claim moral subjectivity, how do you apply your practical beliefs? How do you decide to assess the truth of the situation of whether a man should be allowed to beat his wife if she disobeys him without morality? The primary purpose of the State is to protect the rights of it's citizens, and to protect the structure which protects the rights of it's citizens (the nation state itself). How can the State protect the rights of it's citizens if it is overwhelmed militarily by another nation state possessing superior weaponry? It cannot. Again, you cannot aim a weapon of mass destruction at the State. You can only aim it at mass amounts of innocent citizens. The State is only at the mercy of its citizens when it wants to be, then. I find that distasteful. And to have ended poorly throughout history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Well I fundamentally disagree with that. I believe in one universal morality. Claiming morality is subjective gives carte blanche to anyone under the sun to do whatever they want. Further more, to claim moral subjectivity, how do you apply your practical beliefs? How do you decide to assess the truth of the situation of whether a man should be allowed to beat his wife if she disobeys him without morality? The State is only at the mercy of its citizens when it wants to be, then. I find that distasteful. And to have ended poorly throughout history. Yes, their is a level of subjectivity in what is or isn't pragmatism, I recognize that. But not nearly as much from my view as morality. Many people believe it is morally correct to take care of those in need. Many people believe it is morally correct to provide healthcare to those who cannot afford it. Many people believe it is immoral to pollute the environment. What I'm saying is that what is morally just for you does not necessarily mean is something that is morally acceptable for another person. So yes, it is highly subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Yes, their is a level of subjectivity in what is or isn't pragmatism, I recognize that. But not nearly as much from my view as morality. Many people believe it is morally correct to take care of those in need. Many people believe it is morally correct to provide healthcare to those who cannot afford it. Many people believe it is immoral to pollute the environment. What I'm saying is that what is morally just for you does not necessarily mean is something that is morally acceptable for another person. So yes, it is highly subjective. Just as some believe it is morally correct to kill women who have premarital sex. They are allowed to have that belief. It just makes them wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spurna Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) Looks like the bill is DOA: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/senate-republicans-hope-house-health-care-bill-dies-already.html Support for the House legislation has “disintegrated” in the Senate, according one Republican senator who requested anonymity to discuss internal conference politics. It will require substantial revisions to win the support of moderate Republicans in the upper chamber — something that will likely make it unacceptable to conservatives.Given what looks like an unbridgeable divide in the Senate GOP conference, some are saying that it would be better if the bill dies in the House....Another Republican senator who requested anonymity to discuss the House bill candidly said, “There are no good options.”The lawmaker acknowledged that not fulfilling the party’s campaign promise to repeal and replace ObamaCare would be politically painful in the short-term but worried that voting for bad policy could have negative reverberations for the GOP over the next decade.“The best thing may be to kill it early so it doesn’t come over here,” the GOP senator said. http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/324220-nervous-gop-senators-rooting-for-ryan-to-fail “I’ve heard that maybe the best thing is that this doesn’t get out of the House so we’re not the ones who ditch it,” said a Republican senator who has publicly voiced concern about the bill but requested anonymity. “Right now this is disintegrating in the Senate, with everyone off on their own about what they don’t like about the bill.” The lawmaker said that voting for the House measure could come back to haunt Republicans again and again, just as votes for ObamaCare in 2009 and 2010 came back to hurt Democrats in the 2010, 2014 and 2016 elections.“It’s tough to vote for policy that hurts people,” the senator added....A third Republican senator said, “I think it’s better if it does not come out of the House in its current form.”The lawmaker said if House GOP leaders manage to pass it, the measure should undergo a major renovation in the Senate by going through hearings and markups in the Finance and Health committees....The Washington Post reported Wednesday that a large contingent of House Republicans want to pass a bill, even if it is likely to die in the Senate, because they don’t want to get blamed by conservative constituents for failing to pass an ObamaCare repeal bill endorsed by Trump. Edited March 16, 2017 by Spurna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Morality is subjective, what I believe to be morally correct maybe something that you don't believe to be just and vice versa. Whereas pragmatism, for me is the search to properly assess truth in meaning of a belief and apply that in practical terms. To me that is logical. We are going to go round and round here, so to avoid repeating myself. I believe we will have to simply agree to disagree. We're going to have to, especially since you've now made a case for moral relativism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Just as some believe it is morally correct to kill women who have premarital sex. They are allowed to have that belief. It just makes them wrong. I'm sorry, you aren't the official arbiter of what is morally just or not. We're going to have to, especially since you've now made a case for moral relativism. Yes, we will have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 "The Washington Post reported Wednesday that a large contingent of House Republicans want to pass a bill, even if it is likely to die in the Senate, because they don’t want to get blamed by conservative constituents for failing to pass an ObamaCare repeal bill endorsed by Trump." Funny! Like nothing has changed...or will. Conservatives are just actors putting on a drama play Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) I'm sorry, you aren't the official arbiter of what is morally just or not. Jeesh. I don't want this guy next to me in my foxhole. An innocent woman gets her head cut off and you say, "Who am I to judge?" Bizzaro. We're going to have to, especially since you've now made a case for moral relativism. That's how it always ends. Moral relativism is one of the greatest forces of decay in our civilization. Edited March 16, 2017 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Jeesh. I don't want this guy next to me in my foxhole. An innocent woman gets her head cut off and you say, "Who am I to judge?" Bizzaro. That's how it always ends. Moral relativism is one of the greatest forces of decay in our civilization. Yes, morals should be absolute and stay that way no matter what! So in your opinion the slave holders were evil, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Yes, morals should be absolute and stay that way no matter what! So in your opinion the slave holders were evil, right? Slavery is, was and will always be immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Jeesh. I don't want this guy next to me in my foxhole. An innocent woman gets her head cut off and you say, "Who am I to judge?" Bizzaro. Is that how you argue? You go from one extreme to another. I give you a practical example of disagreements of morality and you provide this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Slavery is, was and will always be immoral. So the founders were immoral then, right? And the south fighting for slavery, evil also, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) Just as some believe it is morally correct to kill women who have premarital sex. They are allowed to have that belief. It just makes them wrong. So when you post the above in response to the below Many people believe it is morally correct to take care of those in need. Many people believe it is morally correct to provide healthcare to those who cannot afford it. Many people believe it is immoral to pollute the environment. What you are saying is the examples that I posted in differences of morality from your view is wrong. Right? Of course that is what you meant. So when I tell you that you aren't the official arbiter of what is morally just or not, you come up with jeesh. I don't want this guy next to me in my foxhole. An innocent woman gets her head cut off and you say, "Who am I to judge?" Bizzaro. You are drawing a moral equivalence of my example to what you posted. Do you not see the absurdity of your argument? Edited March 16, 2017 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) Is that how you argue? You go from one extreme to another. I give you a practical example of disagreements of morality and you provide this? Extreme, yes. But subjectivity is subjectivity, no? If there's no universal morality, there can be no universal immorality. I provided an example that shows just how absurd that notion is. Furthermore, I'm not sure why you're now taking umbrage; you initially challenged my notion that killing a woman for engaging in premarital sex is immoral. Shades of gray, huh? So when you post the above in response to the below What you are saying is the examples that I posted in differences of morality from your view is wrong. Right? Of course that is what you meant. So when I tell you that you aren't the official arbiter of what is morally just or not, you come up with Do you not see the absurdity of your argument? My position has been that the idea of "subjective" morality is and always will be incorrect. That does not mean I have all the answers, but I surely have a few. So the founders were immoral then, right? And the south fighting for slavery, evil also, right? Owning slaves was immoral. You have a clear misunderstanding of history but if your claim was true, then fighting to perpetuate immorality is also immoral. Edited March 16, 2017 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) I give you a practical example of disagreements of morality and you provide this? Just as FireChan has stumbled into problems of logical inconsistencies with his arguments, so have you here. Your argument is not internally logically consistent. The moment you propose that there are no moral truths, and the morality is flexible and relative, you open up your case to accepting the worst sorts of immorality as just, else your entire argument rests on the logical fallacy of special pleading. Slavery is an absolute moral wrong. Theft is an absolute moral wrong. Edited March 16, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts