[luke warm]

csdenmark, on Apr 8 2006, 09:19 AM, said:

Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?

would denmark? probably not, but those in power there, and in most civilized countries, would probably breathe a sigh of relief if someone prevented iran from going nuclear, while at the same time criticizing whoever did so

[csdenmark]

I know quite well Jimmy it is very difficult for an american president not to go to war. If american soliders are not needed for armed combats then for what are they needed? NOTHING is the answer - and american presidents knows that, therefore they go to war.

USA is the only country I think which haven't received the peace dividend coming from end of the cold war. Why? All knows the answer - then they will need to deal with domestic issues - very uncomfortable of course.

[pbleighton]

1. "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 stated that very few moral or political arguments were provable by either side. Do you disagree?

2. You said "i could be wrong, but i think you don't really believe there's such a thing as morality... not a real, objective morality" (Apr 3 2006, 10:39 AM)

It was in response to this that I said that I believed that morality was subjective (Apr 3 2006, 11:53 PM).

This was the timing. You can look it up.

You introduced the concept of "objective morality" into the discussion, not me. I stated a moral judgment, which billions of people do every day. This is not the same as getting into the nature of morality, which you did by asking my position, then refusing to reveal your own.

3. You also said, without any stated basis, that morality has no place in political discussions. This is a very unusual view (I know no one, of any political persuasion, who would agree with it). I asked:
"Except for a horse-race, who is going to win the election conversation, how can anyone have a meaningful political discussion which is devoid of a significant moral dimension?

Welfare, abortion, capital punishment, the minimum wage, gay marriage..."

You never replied to this. You have been basing your refusal to engage on the nature of morality, a subject you brought up, on:
1) I brought up the concept of subjective vs objective morality. Patently false, see above, and
2) Morality has no place in political discussions. Strange, stated with no basis. Can you at least give an argument in favor of a position so totally at odds with common practice? This is what I meant by the teenager analogy (which I qualified as being weird, and not like your typical posts). I feel that it is incredibly naive for a normally thoughtful adult such as yourself to attempt to dissociate political issues from morality.

Peter

[luke warm]

pbleighton, on Apr 8 2006, 11:46 AM, said:

1. "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 asked you which of those you disagreed with.. you didn't answer... i will gladly defend any positive affirmation i make, or will just as gladly admit i erred... show me the affirmation as i've shown you yours

Quote

2. You said "i could be wrong, but i think you don't really believe there's such a thing as morality... not a real, objective morality" (Apr 3 2006, 10:39 AM)

It was in response to this that I said that I believed that morality was subjective (Apr 3 2006, 11:53 PM). This was the timing. You can look it up.

i did look it up... my last post gave the timeline... you keep saying that 'objective morality' is a stance i took... i never once stated i did... as a matter of fact, as i've said over and over and as you have never denied, you introduced morality for the first time on Apr 2 2006, 01:53 PM, which is prior to your example above ... i would never have used morality as a basis for my argument unless i was prepared to defend it

then on Apr 2 2006, 03:56 PM, in direct response to you, i asked "are you saying that there is some way to measure morality? is this the 'peter morality' we're speaking of, or is there some more objective type?" ... i again asked, on Apr 2 2006, 05:44 PM, "all i asked was, whose morality are you using to measure this against?"

that is a perfectly legitimate question to ask of a person who asserts that something is true (iow, a positive affirmation) ... i am entitled clarification of an affirmative statement, and i sought it...

Quote

You introduced the concept of "objective morality" into the discussion, not me. I stated a moral judgment, which billions of people do every day.  This is not the same as getting into the nature of morality, which you did by asking my position, then refusing to reveal your own.

you keep repeating the same inaccurate statement... i answered this last post, here it is again if you missed it:

you can keep repeating that as often as you like, but anyone who has followed our posts can easily see your error... the first time morality was mentioned, Apr 2 2006, 01:53 PM, you said these two things:

" ... it is wrong to topple foreign governments ... " and "It is morally wrong."

you introduced something into the debate, and i had the right to ask for clarification, which i did by asking the nature of this morality to which you referred... you clarified by stating that your morality is subjective...

it's exactly the same thing as if i'd said something like "it's obvious God exists" and you sought clarification by asking "to which God do you refer, the christian God or some other god?"... if i answered "the christian God," i could not then accuse you of introducing "some other god" into the discussion... an honest reading of the posts by anyone will show the truth here

Quote

3. You also said, without any stated basis, that morality has no place in political discussions.

no i did not... for the 6th time now, this is what i said on this point: " ... you introduced that concept into the discussion... that's an entirely different conversation, and i'm not sure anything of a political nature can be discussed in that light"

as you can see (if you read the 6 times it's been posted), i did NOT state what you accuse me of stating, and it's dishonest to keep saying i did... show me where... saying "morality is subjective" is an example of making a statement.. saying "... i'm not sure... " is not

Quote

"Except for a horse-race, who is going to win the election conversation, how can anyone have a meaningful political discussion which is devoid of a significant moral dimension?

Welfare, abortion, capital punishment, the minimum wage, gay marriage..."

You never replied to this.

i replied 32 minutes later and said, "whether or not that's true, i'd still be interested in knowing upon what you base this ethereal concept of 'morality'..."

i can argue the points you raise without recourse to morality... however, if i did use morality in my argument i would be able to defend its use... you will not be allowed to make mere assertions in a debate with no challenge to those assertions

Quote

You have been basing your refusal to engage on the nature of morality

the nature of morality? since when did this turn into a debate on the nature of morality? ... you call something immoral and then get upset when i won't say what you want me to say, or you accuse me of saying that which i never said... when your arguments are fallacious, when you use ad hominem attacks, when you introduce straw men into a debate, you will be called on it...

Quote

a subject you brought up, on:
1) I brought up the concept of subjective vs objective morality.

show me where i said that, or retract it... you brought up the concept of morality, period... the earliest words on the subject were your words, not mine... you cannot force me to make an argument i refuse to make

Quote

2) Morality has no place in political discussions.  Strange, stated with no basis.  Can you at least give an argument in favor of a position so totally at odds with common practice?

you continue to use straw men... show me where i stated the above as a fact... i said i was not *sure* such a thing was possible, not that it wasn't... a little more (no pun intended) objectivity is needed when you accuse me of making assertions i never made

it's seems foolish to say a person said a thing when the words to disprove the accusation are there for all to see

[pbleighton]

1. "you keep saying that 'objective morality' is a stance i took"

No, this is what I said:

"You introduced the concept of "objective morality" into the discussion, not me."

As my quote of yours demonstrated.

2. "i am entitled clarification of an affirmative statement, and i sought it... "

Yes, you did so, and I have no problem with that. You did so, however, by bringing up the concept of "objective morality". I have no problem with that, either. I'm just baffled by your refusal to acknowledge what you did.

3. "the nature of morality? since when did this turn into a debate on the nature of morality?"

Since you said "i could be wrong, but i think you don't really believe there's such a thing as morality... not a real, objective morality"

and

"let's see... if there's no such thing as a "real, objective morality," then by your definition ("no such thing") it can't exist"

and

"... one has to either admit that morality is subjective (aceofheart's canabal example) or state why it is objective... if subjective, it's reduced to the level of opinion, and should be stated as such... you notice that peter did not attempt to define morality, or explain why one act is moral while another is immoral.. "

Sure sounds to me like you were discussing the nature of morality to me.

4. " show me where i stated the above as a fact... i said i was not *sure* such a thing was possible, not that it wasn't"

You said:

"you introduced that concept [morality] into the discussion... that's an entirely different conversation, and i'm not sure anything of a political nature can be discussed in that light"

"That's an entirely different conversation"?

No it's not, unless you believe that morality has no place in political discussions.

5. From your first post in this thread:

"all the bash america posts make me sad... the last stats i have (ca 2003) show that the u.s. gave an estimated $241 billion in charity to the rest of the world, which equals about 2.3 percent of u.s. gross domestic product.... check out how much other 'developed' countries give, as a % of gdp... anybody close?"

While not using the word "morality", this is clearly a defense of the U.S. on moral grounds. You are defending the U.S. by talking about charitable contributions. This preceded my "It is morally wrong." post.

So who introduced morality into the discussion? Well, the people who wrote the posts you reacted to, perhaps, but you were in there, too. After the initial conspiracy stuff, this thread has been mostly about the justifiability (moral or otherwise) of U.S. foreign policy, present and past.

And you were part of it, until you decided to parse a simple statement of moral judgment to death.

Peter

[luke warm]

pbleighton, on Apr 8 2006, 03:42 PM, said:

1. "you keep saying that 'objective morality' is a stance i took"

No, this is what I said:

"You introduced the concept of "objective morality" into the discussion, not me."

As my quote of yours demonstrated.

what you posted was a quote in which i said "i think," which means it's an opinion.. you clarified the issue when you confirmed that what i thought to be true was true..

Quote

2. "i am entitled clarification of an affirmative statement, and i sought it... "

Yes, you did so, and I have no problem with that.  You did so, however, by bringing up the concept of "objective morality".  I have no problem with that, either. I'm just baffled by your refusal to acknowledge what you did.

because morality, objective or otherwise, was not a part of my argument... it was a part of yours, and i want(ed) to know why...

Quote

3. "the nature of morality? since when did this turn into a debate on the nature of morality?"

Since you said "i could be wrong, but i think you don't really believe there's such a thing as morality... not a real, objective morality"

and

"let's see... if there's no such thing as a "real, objective morality," then by your definition ("no such thing") it can't exist"

and

"... one has to either admit that morality is subjective (aceofheart's canabal example) or state why it is objective... if subjective, it's reduced to the level of opinion, and should be stated as such... you notice that peter did not attempt to define morality, or explain why one act is moral while another is immoral.. " Sure sounds to me like you were discussing the nature of morality to me.

i've said countless times that i wasn't discussing morality, i was discussing your use of it as an argument... you said objective morality doesn't exist.. fine... however, my contention is that if that's the case, you cannot make an argument based on morality... why? because your morality is simply an opinion stated as a fact... a mere assertion... when you say something is immoral (not as an opinion, but as a fact), you have to defend it...

Quote

4. " show me where i stated the above as a fact... i said i was not *sure* such a thing was possible, not that it wasn't"

You said:

"you introduced that concept [morality] into the discussion... that's an entirely different conversation, and i'm not sure anything of a political nature can be discussed in that light"

"That's an entirely different conversation"?

No it's not, unless you believe that morality has no place in political discussions.

as i stated, and as you quoted me as stating, i'm not sure morality has such a place... i've said so numerous times...

Quote

5.  From your first post in this thread:

"all the bash america posts make me sad... the last stats i have (ca 2003) show that the u.s. gave an estimated $241 billion in charity to the rest of the world, which equals about 2.3 percent of u.s. gross domestic product.... check out how much other 'developed' countries give, as a % of gdp... anybody close?"

While not using the word "morality", this is clearly a defense of the U.S. on moral grounds.  You are defending the U.S. by talking about charitable contributions.  This preceded my "It is morally wrong." post.

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

Quote

So who introduced morality into the discussion? Well, the people who wrote the posts you reacted to, perhaps, but you were in there, too.  After the initial conspiracy stuff, this thread has been mostly about the justifiability (moral or otherwise) of U.S. foreign policy, present and past.

And you were part of it, until you decided to parse a simple statement of moral judgment to death.

i was only a part of it in your mind... even though i never made a moral argument, you assumed i did... i am not responsible for the error of your assumptions...

you are free to make all the moral judgments you want... but in a debate, when you positively affirm a position you have to be able to defend it... i positively affirmed no position viz morality, i only asked questions to clarify yours...

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

[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.