FireChan Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 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. That's just, like, your opinion, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 That's just, like, your opinion, man. Wasn't Washington's opinion, or Jefferson's. Guess they were evil, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 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? you should get out now. you did very well here but now youre stepping in bottomless quicksand You are drawing a moral equivalence of my example to what you posted. Do you not see the absurdity of your argument? sinking ... you cant win when it gets to this point use the mental ignore force, luke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 Straight Ayn Randian logic and even word choice. Problem with objectivist rigidity is the lack of practicality (and that fun and love were not part of her world). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 (edited) Wasn't Washington's opinion, or Jefferson's. Guess they were evil, huh? Haven't we addressed this? Are you gonna make a point or just keep drooling on me? you should get out now. you did very well here but now youre stepping in bottomless quicksand sinking ... you cant win when it gets to this point use the mental ignore force, luke Magox has been here for years. He certainly needs no advice from black gator. Straight Ayn Randian logic and even word choice. Problem with objectivist rigidity is the lack of practicality (and that fun and love were not part of her world). I think what TYTT has argued in the past is that necessary evils for practicality's sake do exist, but they should never be forgotten as necessary evils. Edited March 17, 2017 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 (edited) Straight Ayn Randian logic and even word choice. There is no such thing as "Randian logic", there is only logic. Problem with objectivist rigidity is the lack of practicality (and that fun and love were not part of her world). If you think I'm an objectivist, you don't know much about objectivism, and if you think I'm quoting Rand, you've never read Rand. Fantastic attempt at poisoning the well though. I've observed that when you don't have a strong material argument against something you usually resort to strawmanning, which you've done here, but it's nice to see you expanding on your base of fallacies. Edited March 17, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 (edited) There is no such thing as "Randian logic", there is only logic. If you think I'm an objectivist, you don't know much about objectivism, and if you think I'm quoting Rand, you've never read Rand. Fantastic attempt at poisoning the well though. I've observed that when you don't have a strong material argument against something you usually resort to strawmanning, which you've done here, but it's nice to see you expanding on your base of fallacies. I'm a huge fan of Rand. Wasn't poisoning any well but thanks for jumping into full jerkoff mode. I have no idea what you are or who you are. I don't really care. Just was noting you echoing her on this point. Edited March 17, 2017 by Benjamin Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 (edited) I'm a huge fan of Rand. Wasn't poisoning any well but thanks for jumping into full jerkoff mode. I have no idea what you are or who you are. I don't really care. Just was noting you echoing her on this point. It's main stream libertarian philosophy. It's not my fault that you used language easily framed as dismissive through source. It is common, I'm sure you know, for individuals who have trouble confronting logical inconsistencies in their own arguments, to attempt to diminish the libertarian argument of their opponent in this way. A few key planks of Rand's philosophy that I reject are her selfishness principle in regards to charitable giving and love; and her rejection of faith. Rand despised libertarians. Edited March 17, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 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. What I said was that the concept of morality is a subjective matter and it is, that is a factual truth. However, there can be a consensus among decent humans that such examples that you and firechan provided would be considered to be morally wrong. Still doesn't change the fact that it is a subjective. I'm sure that George Washington and Benjamin Franklin who were previous slave holders had some sort of explanation of subjectively to justify the morality of their past decisions. Or if you talk to a terrorist who kills innocent people has some sort of justification as to why they believe they are doing their God's work. Doesn't mean that the vast majority of the population is in agreement but just shows you that what is right and wrong in terms of morality is in the eyes of the beholder. But that's not what we were talking about, the context of all this came under your opinion that it is morally unjust for the government to tax individuals. That is without doubt, subjective. Just like whether a government has moral justification in providing social safety nets to its citizens. That as well would be subjective. I'm not taking a position one way or another in regards to the morality of all this because I tend to view things from a practical point of view. I believe social safety nets if provided in an efficient and accountable manner helps citizens get back on their feet so that they can then be a productive member of society again. They pay into a system, when they are down on their luck, the safety net is there for them. Not to get sidetracked on social safety nets, my point is that my view of all this, comes from what I would consider to be practical terms as opposed to what is morally just or not. Bleeding hearts believe caring for the poor is the morally just thing to do. Individualists believe the preservation of their rights is at the epicenter of morality. Both sides tend to disagree with one another, doesn't make any one of you right or wrong. Now, if there is policy that is attached to that moral justification, then we can judge whether or not that law or taxation effectively addresses what the law was intended to do in an objective matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 What I said was that the concept of morality is a subjective matter and it is, that is a factual truth. That's it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 (edited) What I said was that the concept of morality is a subjective matter and it is, that is a factual truth. However, there can be a consensus among decent humans that such examples that you and firechan provided would be considered to be morally wrong. Still doesn't change the fact that it is a subjective. I'm sure that George Washington and Benjamin Franklin who were previous slave holders had some sort of explanation of subjectively to justify the morality of their past decisions. Or if you talk to a terrorist who kills innocent people has some sort of justification as to why they believe they are doing their God's work. Doesn't mean that the vast majority of the population is in agreement but just shows you that what is right and wrong in terms of morality is in the eyes of the beholder. But that's not what we were talking about, the context of all this came under your opinion that it is morally unjust for the government to tax individuals. That is without doubt, subjective. Just like whether a government has moral justification in providing social safety nets to its citizens. That as well would be subjective. I'm not taking a position one way or another in regards to the morality of all this because I tend to view things from a practical point of view. I believe social safety nets if provided in an efficient and accountable manner helps citizens get back on their feet so that they can then be a productive member of society again. They pay into a system, when they are down on their luck, the safety net is there for them. Not to get sidetracked on social safety nets, my point is that my view of all this, comes from what I would consider to be practical terms as opposed to what is morally just or not. Bleeding hearts believe caring for the poor is the morally just thing to do. Individualists believe the preservation of their rights is at the epicenter of morality. Both sides tend to disagree with one another, doesn't make any one of you right or wrong. Now, if there is policy that is attached to that moral justification, then we can judge whether or not that law or taxation effectively addresses what the law was intended to do in an objective matter. Again, you're engaging in special pleading. Either murder is wrong, or it isn't. Either slavery is wrong, or it isn't. Either theft is wrong or it isn't. Your argument is that any of those things can be moral if they are politically expedient is bankrupt. Stealing from you, or making a slave of you isn't magically moral if it helps achieve what some individuals decide to be a desirable outcome. Process matters. The desire to help the poor is a moral positive, but that desire does not magically invalidate the immorality of engaging in theft or slavery in working towards that goal. Under your argument, Southern chattel slavery was a moral positive, as it achieved a desirable outcome for the majority of individuals in the South. Under your argument, the 3/5th compromise, rather than being a black stain on our nation's history, was desirable as pragmatic. It also makes way for the positive morality of jingoistic white nationalism. You can't have it both ways. Edited March 17, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 (edited) Again, you're engaging in special pleading. Either murder is wrong, or it isn't. Either slavery is wrong, or it isn't. Either theft is wrong or it isn't. You're argument is that any of those things can be moral if they are politically expedient is bankrupt. Stealing from you, or making a slave of you isn't magically moral if it helps achieve what some individuals decide to be a desirable outcome. Process matters. The desire to help the poor is a moral positive, but that desire does not magically invalidate the immorality of engaging in theft or slavery in working towards that goal. Under your argument, Southern chattel slavery was a moral positive, as it achieved a desirable outcome for the majority of individuals in the South. Under your argument, the 3/5th compromise, rather than being a black stain on our nation's history, was desirable as pragmatic. It also makes way for the positive morality of jingoistic white nationalism. You can't have it both ways. You have got that completely backwards. The only pleading I am seeing is coming from you. You are essentially wanting people to come to your view, where you decide all matters of morality or that what is understood to be acceptable in terms of morality is written in stone somewhere and that we are all ascribing to these universal sort of truths. So when you say Under your argument, Southern chattel slavery was a moral positive, as it achieved a desirable outcome for the majority of individuals in the South. Under your argument, the 3/5th compromise, rather than being a black stain on our nation's history, was desirable as pragmatic. It also makes way for the positive morality of jingoistic white nationalism. Under my argument, that in this society that we live in, if government makes a decision that is against the will of the people that there will be a course correction and that policy will then begin to more closely reflect the wishes of the people. That's how a functioning Democracy works. Doesn't mean that injustices don't occur under these systems, just that reforms and changes take place when government comes to the wrong conclusion or if major overreaches occur. And I seem to remember saying something like that in a previous post. We elect officials who can change tax policy, and the decisions that our elected officials make has electoral consequences which in turn has consequences in tax policy. It is a part of our and other Democracies across the world, just count your lucky stars that we have a better system of checks and balances than other governments across the world. You either come to a realization that what I'm saying is factually correct or you don't. If you cannot accept the fact that morality is subjective, then we really can't go any further on this topic. Edited March 17, 2017 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 Both of you guys: Is it ok to kill babies? Is an embryo a baby? When does life begin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 Both of you guys: Is it ok to kill babies? Is an embryo a baby? When does life begin? No. Probably. Week 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 No. Probably. Week 4. That's one person's morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 That's one person's morality. Correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 Now back to this. Magox, you are conflating morality with opinion. Not all opinions hold equal weight on a moral scale, and many of the opinions you seem to be validating are immoral. Seeking either to steal an individuals money, or subvert him into slavery by asserting that he doesn't own the fruits of his own labor cannot have their objective immorality washed away via utilitarianism. One man's assertion that slavery is preferable, or even acceptable, does not inherently validates that man's views. Even if the majority of men hold that same view, this is still the case. The natural state of man is freedom, and to these ends, freedom leads to increased expression of creativity and original thought which has pulled the world from the darkness, and led to a drastically increased quality of life. The freest nations in the world have the highest rates of happiness and the highest quality of life on the planet. Your position is one that seems to believe that freedom is unimportant, as it seeks to eliminate the freedom of association, property rights, the right to individual self-determination, and the general rights of man. This is not pragmatic, this is destructive behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 That's one person's morality. Correct Genocide was seen as moral by one person too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 Genocide was seen as moral by one person too. Ok, what does that have to do with morality being subjective? One can find something to be morally repugnant and still believe it to be subjective. That's where you two are getting tripped up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts