[pbleighton]

1. "i've said countless times that i wasn't discussing morality, i was discussing your use of it as an argument."

A distinction without a difference.

2. "that isn't the first time you've used the same fallacious tactic... the giving of money to charities may or may not be moral, but i never said it was nor even hinted at it... i simply stated it as a fact... you are free to draw inferences from things people say, by you aren't free to put words in their mouths or thoughts in their heads... you can't keep insisting something is "clear" to you when the person who uttered the words tells you flat out that you are wrong"

YOU can't use words in ways which, in common usage and obvious inference, mean X, and later deny they mean X, and expect not to be called on it. You NEVER hinted that large charitable contributions are moral? IT JUST SO HAPPENED that you made reference to large U.S. charitable donations, right after you said that "all the bash america posts make me sad"? WOW!!! WHAT A COINCIDENCE!!! What was this, a random factoid that just popped into your head? You are hiding behind a decidedly amateurish legalism, and your denial is totally unconvincing, and I AM free to point that out.

3. "for the 3rd time i'll ask: which of these 3 do you disagree with?

in a debate, the person who makes a positive affirmation bears the burden of proof;
peter positively affirmed that certain acts of the us gov't were immoral;
peter bears the burden of proof"

I have given what I considered to be an adequate response twice before. I will amplify it a little.

Number two doesn't apply to this discussion, therefore number three doesn't follow. Number two doesn't apply because, while I did state that certain acts of the U.S. goverment were immoral, I did not "positively affirm" it, in a legalistic sense. As I have said before:
"Most political discussions, even those with little moral content, are rarely provable."

The reason that I didn't append this to my original statement is that I was engaged in a political/moral discussion, where most of the posters are making unprovable political/moral statements and implications (and this DEFINITELY includes you in your charity reference, whether or not you want to admit it), and I assumed (obviously incorrectly) that everyone understood the nature of the discussion. You are the ONLY poster who doesn't get this.

4. You should pick up a book on semantics. You are a smart guy, but you would do much better focusing on basic meaning and communication, rather than trying to be a lawyer, or a philosopher-king.

5. This is my final post in this thread. You may have the last word if you wish.

Peter

[luke warm]

pbleighton, on Apr 8 2006, 10:00 PM, said:

1. "i've said countless times that i wasn't discussing morality, i was discussing your use of it as an argument."

A distinction without a difference.

your opinion only, again stated as a fact... starting with my first words on the subject i've consistently stated that in my opinion morality has no place in this debate

Quote

You NEVER hinted that large charitable contributions are moral? IT JUST SO HAPPENED that you made reference to large U.S. charitable donations, right after you said that "all the bash america posts make me sad"?  WOW!!! WHAT A COINCIDENCE!!!

the giving of charity has many motives, not all of which are altruistic... that's why i never spoke to motive.. so yes, i never even hinted that donations were necessarily moral in nature... you assumed it, as you assume other things.. i can point to things you actually say, you point to things you assume i mean or wish i'd said

Quote

in a debate, the person who makes a positive affirmation bears the burden of proof;
peter positively affirmed that certain acts of the us gov't were immoral;
peter bears the burden of proof"

Number two doesn't apply to this discussion, therefore number three doesn't follow.  Number two doesn't apply because, while I did state that certain acts of the U.S. goverment were immoral, I did not "positively affirm" it, in a legalistic sense.  As I have said before:
"Most political discussions, even those with little moral content, are rarely provable."

a statement of fact is a positive affirmation... what does "in a legalistic sense" mean? you did state it as a fact, you bear the burden

Quote

You should pick up a book on semantics.  You are a smart guy, but you would do much better focusing on basic meaning and communication, rather than trying to be a lawyer, or a philosopher-king.

in all this time i've not once made personal remarks about you... my 'basic meaning and communication' skills are at *least* on a par with yours... anyone with any training at all in debate can recognize the myriad fallacies in your arguments, so maybe you're the one who needs to work on communication

Quote

This is my final post in this thread.  You may have the last word if you wish.

thanks

[helene_t]

No, Jimmy: Peter did not state anything as a *fact*: moral judgement can never be based on facts alone.

If you're really interested you should ask him what his frame of reference is. Presumably, you're making the assumption that his frame of reference"is "objective moral", but it can't be: we all agree that there is no objective moral. If you assume Peter is talking out of an absurd frame of reference it's pretty easy to show that what he's saying is aburd.

[Sigi_BC84]

luke warm, on Apr 9 2006, 05:02 AM, said:

peter said:

You should pick up a book on semantics.  You are a smart guy, but you would do much better focusing on basic meaning and communication, rather than trying to be a lawyer, or a philosopher-king.

in all this time i've not once made personal remarks about you... my 'basic meaning and communication' skills are at *least* on a par with yours... anyone with any training at all in debate can recognize the myriad fallacies in your arguments, so maybe you're the one who needs to work on communication

Since Peter decided to stop posting here, I will leap in to his defense.

I've been following the debate between you two and I've got the same impression as Peter. You continued to try to worm yourself out of certain areas of this discussion which, as I assume, you are uncomfortable facing. You definitely tried to apply lawyer-tactics when nitpicking about objective vs. subjective morality instead of taking a clear position. You should at least recognize the possibility that to the audience you might have come across as the sore loser of this debate...

(No offense intented, I'm just giving my impression Jimmy.)

--Sigi

[keylime]

I don't think Jimmy lost this debate. Not even close.

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Apr 8 2006, 02:04 AM, said:

Quote

5: "According to the vast majority of contemporary Western philosofers, ....."
That's would probably be the most useful frame of reference for a forum like this one. And as for rape and torture, it happens to qualify, I think.

yes, that could qualify... but that's basically the 'might makes right' argument in a context where philosophical thought has replaced bullets (imo)

That's wonderful. We can extend this way of thinking to factual statements as well, and even to mathematics. So the only reason why 2+2=4 is that the mathematicians who think so have more persuasive power than the ones who think that 2+2=5. Now everything becomes "might makes right". I guess future textbooks on filosophy can be pretty short.

Peter never wanted to talk about the existence of objective morality. He expressed his opinion about Iraq. Now you asked him if this opinion was based on objective or subjective morality. Since he said "subjective", you said that if moral is subjective it reduces to "might makes right".

I thought I disagreed with this. But now that you have told us that "might makes right" has a pretty broad interpretation, I have no problems with it.

So we aggree: given the implicit frame of reference that "might makes right" applies to everything, then also "It was immoral to invade Iraq" must be based on a might-makes-right moral system. Not really interesting, kinda similar to the mathematical statement X=X. But at least it's true.

It would be more interesting to talk about moral issues on the basis of some less trivial frame of reference.

As for the discussion about who introduced "objective moral" into this discussion, I think it was you, since Peter's original statement should just read "[IMO,] it was immoral to invade Iraq". But obviously you interpretted it differently.

Quote

if morality is indeed subjective, his statement that a thing (any thing) is immoral carries no more weight that the one who states that the same thing is moral

You're entitled to this kind of logic, but you should not take for granted that other people agree. I'm not sure if it's some kind of home-made filosophy (like the "logical imposibility" of an infinite number of time points) or if you took it from somewhere.

[luke warm]

Quote

in all this time i've not once made personal remarks about you... my 'basic meaning and communication' skills are at *least* on a par with yours... anyone with any training at all in debate can recognize the myriad fallacies in your arguments, so maybe you're the one who needs to work on communication

Since Peter decided to stop posting here, I will leap in to his defense.

I've been following the debate between you two and I've got the same impression as Peter.  You continued to try to worm yourself out of certain areas of this discussion which, as I assume, you are uncomfortable facing.  You definitely tried to apply lawyer-tactics when nitpicking about objective vs. subjective morality instead of taking a clear position.  You should at least recognize the possibility that to the audience you might have come across as the sore loser of this debate...

(No offense intented, I'm just giving my impression Jimmy.)

--Sigi

none taken... however, what you call lawyer tactics are really just simple debate tactics... in a debate, words matter, the way they're used matters, and unproven assertions count... that means that in a debate a person can't make a statement of fact without the occasional challenge... i wasn't trying to worm my way out of anything.. i didn't say anything to worm my way out of... i stated over and over that morality wasn't a part of my argument, and i stated why it wasn't... but i am entitled to know why it was a part of his

when someone asks for clarification of a factual statement, it makes no sense to answer by asking the other party's stance... the other party made no statement

i've tried to be as clear as possible, i've reread everything i've written and it seems clear to me.. but that's probably because i knew what i was thinking as i wrote it... this medium isn't known for bolstering conversation.. in any event, we could argue the case as long as the arguments being used by both were known to at least exist (ie, moneys given to charities)... but when someone attempts a proof by introducing something that requires clarification before it can be accepted, the other party has a right to that clarification.. in a debate, that is

btw, a "real" debate is scored on the facts as presented by each, the way in which one counters the other, and the logical fallacies present in both arguments... judge those things for yourself

helene said:

No, Jimmy: Peter did not state anything as a *fact*: moral judgement can never be based on facts alone.

ok, i'm not trying to start any more debates but the portion of your sentence starting with "moral judgment ... " is stated as a fact.. would you agree? now if we were debating, i'd point out that you've made an assertion with no attempt at proof... therefore, those reading are free to, and should, dismiss it until such time as you reply and attempt a proof...

peter did state *as a fact* that certain actions of the us gov't were immoral... you are attempting to dismiss that through your assertion above... but as in the other case, the burden of proof rests with the one making the assertion - in a debate, that is

Quote

Since he said "subjective", you said that if moral is subjective it reduces to "might makes right".

that isn't quite what i said... i offered 'might makes right' as one possible argument for a subjective morality

Quote

So we aggree: given the implicit frame of reference that "might makes right" applies to everything, then also "It was immoral to invade Iraq" must be based on a might-makes-right moral system. Not really interesting, kinda similar to the mathematical statement X=X. But at least it's true.

well it's a *possible* truth in a world with subjective morality

Quote

As for the discussion about who introduced "objective moral" into this discussion, I think it was you, since Peter's original statement should just read "[IMO,] it was immoral to invade Iraq". But obviously you interpretted it differently

it's hard to interpret "It is immoral" in very many different ways... and helene, i don't think it's quite fair to say that a person asking a question about an assertion made by another can be said to have introduced anything... especially in a debate... i gave an analogy on it and nobody replied

Quote

if morality is indeed subjective, his statement that a thing (any thing) is immoral carries no more weight that the one who states that the same thing is moral

You're entitled to this kind of logic, but you should not take for granted that other people agree. I'm not sure if it's some kind of home-made filosophy (like the "logical imposibility" of an infinite number of time points) or if you took it from somewhere.

ok helene, test it for yourself... some people i know consider it immoral to drink (or smoke)... i don't... in a world of subjective morality, who is wrong?

the logical impossibility of an infinite # of time points is not mine, even atheist philosophers and scientists have difficulty with it... it's one reason they need something in addition to big bang... cause 'from nothing nothing comes'

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Apr 11 2006, 01:57 AM, said:

i've tried to be as clear as possible

Well, it would be a lot clearer if you took some kind of position with respect to the nature of morality.

Also, it would be a lot clearer if you tried to avoid fuzzy terms like "subjective". "Debatable" is a lot more down-to-Earth. IMHO. Maybe you and I differ with respect to what concepts we find easy to deal with.

The word "subjective" has very different meanings in different branches of science and filosofy. In law, for example, subjective liability means something like "with respect to the intend or a priori risk asociated with an action, rather than with respect to it's actual consequences". If this is the meaning that might apply to moral, I can imagine it would mean something like "in objective moral it's ok to drive drunk as long as you're lucky enough not to cause any harm". To me, other possible meanings of the term "objective moral" lead to equally wicked conclusions. So I was kinda surprised when you stated that we have not agree on the non-existence of objective moral. Probably your concept of "objective moral" is something that goes beyond my immagination of what it might mean.

Quote

helene said:

No, Jimmy: Peter did not state anything as a *fact*: moral judgement can never be based on facts alone.

ok, i'm not trying to start any more debates but the portion of your sentence starting with "moral judgment ... " is stated as a fact.. would you agree? now if we were debating, i'd point out that you've made an assertion with no attempt at proof... therefore, those reading are free to, and should, dismiss it until such time as you reply and attempt a proof...

I don't think it can be proved. Almost nothing can be proved (even in mathematics, most propositions depend on the faith in the consistency of the Zamelo-Frankel axiom system, which has never been proved AFAIK).

But as for my statement: You can look it up in any beginner's book of filosophy. It's not really controversial. Even if there are a few wicked filosoffers who play with reference frames in which certain moral statements can be derived from facts, I would not expect Peter's statement to be made within such a reference frame.

Quote

it's hard to interpret "It is immoral" in very many different ways

Well, first of all moral judgement is allways based on some implicit frame of reference. It could very well be something as simple as "It's Peter's humble opinion that ...." but could also be something more subtle.
Second, the use of the word "immoral" is most simply interpreted as short-hand for "Peter's statement is based on moral considerations". In that case it's subjective at the level of reasoning rather than with respect to his conclusion. But I'm sure other interpretations are possible.

I suspect the reason why we have so much trouble understanding each other is
- we differ with respect to implicit reference frame: you seem to assume an implicit reference frame like "I can proove that ..." when I (in cases like this) assume "IMHO ..."
- we may differ with respect to the meaning of the words "subjective" and "objective". My immediate interpretation was something like "debatable" and "non-debatable", but as the discussion goes on I'm getting more and more confused.

Quote

some people i know consider it immoral to drink (or smoke)... i don't... in a world of subjective morality, who is wrong?

I think most contemporary filosofers would agree with you. I might be wrong. It's possible that this is case were many filosoffers would say that it's debatable. Which is not to say that everything is debatable. Rape and torture are not.

Quote

the logical impossibility of an infinite # of time points is not mine, even atheist philosophers and scientists have difficulty with it

I think you have misunderstood something - the idea of a finite number of time points seems extremely bizare to me, and I never heard a scientist worry about this, except for historical intest in Zeno's paradox. But even if it is a problem to some filosofers, you should not assume that everybody agrees that it's a problem, let alone an unsolvable one.

[Impact]

helene_t, on Apr 11 2006, 02:21 AM, said:

Quote

some people i know consider it immoral to drink (or smoke)... i don't... in a world of subjective morality, who is wrong?

I think most contemporary filosofers would agree with you. I might be wrong. It's possible that this is case were many filosoffers would say that it's debatable. Which is not to say that everything is debatable. Rape and torture are not.

[

Helene,

I think I know where you are coming from but your example may not have been the best: one of the classic dilemmas on any moral philosophy is the point at which something (eg torture) which is reprehensible in itself (note I did not use "morally wrong" ), can be justified.

First year philosophy includes starting with the general prohibition against cannibalism/killing. Next you stipulate that the group of people have no source of food but a time for imminent rescue is such that all would be dead....now one peson is dead and consuming him would allow all others to survive.....and then you move to the scenario where no one is dead, but if someone is not consumed all will die....etc

In the case of torture of someone eg a terrorist where many lives are at stake for the information he retains- or if that is not enough for you, hypothesise the destruction of our world....

I confess that I am unable to justify rape per se, but I suppose if you were to classify rape as a form of torture (stating or hypothesising that it was the only form of "torture" that would be likely to produce a result -really stretching here -and apply the same hypothesis as that posited above), you might be able to make a philosophical case even for rape under the circumstances.

Note, I am not sure that the various semantic and psychological definitions of "rape " beyond the physical fact of non- consensual sex would be appropriate - but that is a further argument.

What we can agree upon is that there are commonly held views of matters which are reprehensible. The circumstances which could justify most of those acts to any individual will vary from person to person introducing a further subjective variable
(after all to a strict Roman Catholic, if I understand it correctly, divorce is still "unacceptable").

Semantics is fun in itself - as is the philosophical conundrum.

I like to use the arbitrary distinction between an opinion (that which I believe applicable) and a conviction (that which a person believes to be universally applicable). When convictions are pressed and disputed, there is a real risk that it will lead to convictions of a legal kind!!!

regards - and congratulations for keeping the lid on this thread, more or less...

[luke warm]

helene said:

Well, it would be a lot clearer if you took some kind of position with respect to the nature of morality.

first of all, i thought we were debating something, not merely discussing it... so i was in debate mode, not conversational mode... that means there are accepted rules, one of which is not to make assertions one is unwilling to defend... i took no position because it wasn't necessary to the subject at hand and i was unwilling to defend one... had it been a conversation only, which i think you think it was, maybe that would be best

Quote

The word "subjective" has very different meanings in different branches of science and filosofy. In law, for example, subjective liability means something like "with respect to the intend or a priori risk asociated with an action, rather than with respect to it's actual consequences".

the subject was morality, the terms 'subjective' and 'objective', when related to that subject, aren't exactly unknown

Quote

I don't think it can be proved.

the point is, in a debate we can't just make statements as we might want to... it's different in everyday conversation... so in a debate (and i tried to be clear i was speaking of a debate), statements such as "moral judgement can never be based on facts alone" may or may not be accepted as fact... if not, some stab at proof must be made... if one were debating, that is

Quote

I think most contemporary filosofers would agree with you. I might be wrong. It's possible that this is case were many filosoffers would say that it's debatable. Which is not to say that everything is debatable. Rape and torture are not

and this is the point of my delving into subjective vs. objective morality... in a world of subjective morality, the difference that exists between smoking and torture is only contained in the sensibilities of the parties

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Apr 11 2006, 12:25 PM, said:

the subject was morality, the terms 'subjective' and 'objective', when related to that subject, aren't exactly unknown

Fine, then it's just me who's an ignorant.

Quote

and this is the point of my delving into subjective vs. objective morality... in a world of subjective morality, the difference that exists between smoking and torture is only contained in the sensibilities of the parties

I'm not sure what kind of difference you fail to find between the two. To me, it's an important difference that one is obviously immoral while the other is, at most, arguebly immoral . But of course, if the difference you are looking for is with respect to some objective criteria, your statement boils down to "subjective is subjective". A special case of X=X. True. But not very interesting.

[Aberlour10]

Has anybody heard about "Bielefeldverschwörung" ( Bielefeld Conspiracy )? I strong belive that the city of Bielefeld does not really exist

[blackshoe]

Hehe. Just read the Wikipedia article on it. Interesting. It mentions a similar conspiracy theory about North Dakota. A friend of mine used to say "there are no humans left in South Dakota — it's been taken over by aliens". Asked for proof, he would reply "just look at George McGovern!"

[Vampyr]

My favourite conspiracy theory is the Secret Bridge Olympics.

[Aberlour10]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-27, 19:50, said:

Hehe. Just read the Wikipedia article on it. Interesting. It mentions a similar conspiracy theory about North Dakota. A friend of mine used to say "there are no humans left in South Dakota — it's been taken over by aliens". Asked for proof, he would reply "just look at George McGovern!"

HEHE

Quote

The city council of Bielefeld
tries hard to generate publicity for Bielefeld and build a nationwide known
public image of the city. Even after 17 years, however, the mayor's office
receives phone calls and e-mails each day which doubt the existence of the
city.

In 1999, five years after the myth started to spread, the city council
released a press statement titled Bielefeld gibt es doch! (There really
is a Bielefeld!). However, the statement's publication date – April 1, 1999 (April
Fools' Day) – was ill-chosen as it gave conspirationalists yet another piece
of material to put into their speculations.

[blackshoe]

I used to live in New Mexico. Every once in a while there'd be a piece in the paper about how folks from the Northeastern states would call or write the state tourism department in Santa Fe and ask if they needed a passport to visit New Mexico.

[jdeegan]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-28, 11:00, said:

I used to live in New Mexico. Every once in a while there'd be a piece in the paper about how folks from the Northeastern states would call or write the state tourism department in Santa Fe and ask if they needed a passport to visit New Mexico.

As a former New Mexico resident, you are no doubt familiar with the 1947 Roswell Incident which is celebrated every July 4 in the town itself. May your anal probes be painless.

[Winstonm]

You're all against me...I know it...

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2013-January-29, 22:15, said:

You're all against me...I know it...

Not all...we miss you.

[Aberlour10]

JEC vs BBF = 30:0 there must be a conspiracy behind it, what's your theory?