Gay Marriage

[SirRumpole]

Humans also define what the word gravity means, is gravity a Human construct.



Gravity is universal, do we need a god to define that?

Talk about straw men.

Gravity is a physical process that many different observers will measure the same, and as far as we know the laws of gravity apply everywhere in the Universe (ie Universal).

Morality as you have conceded varies from person to person and is therefore a product of the human mind, and is not universal.

Maybe you should look at your logical fallacies.

 

[Value Collector]

Talk about straw men.

Gravity is a physical process that many different observers will measure the same, and as far as we know the laws of gravity apply everywhere in the Universe (ie Universal).

Morality as you have conceded varies from person to person and is therefore a product of the human mind, and is not universal.

Maybe you should look at your logical fallacies.

Nope, you have got me wrong. Morality doesn't vary from person to person. what people think is moral might, but that doesn't change what the actual most moral choice would be. the fact that the 911 hijackers thought they were behaving morally, doesn't mean they were.

Peoples understanding of morality may vary, just like their understanding of gravity will vary. Most people have a lot of misconceptions about gravity, no doubt you yourself don't understand it fully and don't understand its affect, but that in no way changes it, and gravity existed before humans understood it, just like morality existed before humans understood it.

As I said there may be things I am doing today that in 100 years we have new information on and we find out it is immoral, that doesn't mean it was moral when I did it today.

 

[SirRumpole]

Nope, you have got me wrong. Morality doesn't vary from person to person. what people think is moral might, but that doesn't change what the actual most moral choice would be. the fact that the 911 hijackers thought they were behaving morally, doesn't mean they were.

Dear oh dear. You seem to be implying that there is a "universal morality" ? Yes or no ?

If yes, then who defines this universal morality ?

what the actual most moral choice would be

As I've asked before and you haven't answered, who says what the "most moral" choice is ?


And what is the criteria for deciding this ?

 

[Value Collector]

Dear oh dear. You seem to be implying that there is a "universal morality" ? Yes or no ?

[/B]

Yes. every action will be some where on the morality scale even if the person has no concept of morals. I person doesn't have to have a concept of morals for them to act either morally or immorally. As I said slavery wasn't moral when it was legal, genocide wasn't moral when it was considered good governance, rape wasn't moral before we had laws against it.

If yes, then who defines this universal morality

No one defines it, we discover it over time, through rational thought and an awareness of the consequences of our actions.

As I've asked before and you haven't answered, who says what the "most moral" choice is ?

And I have answered it before, we might not have the information we need to know the most moral choice is in every situation, but in every situation there is a most moral choice but what we have to do is pass our decisions through a series of filters using principles we have discovered through evidence based logical thinking to try and get to the most moral decision possible based on what we know.

and example of some principles are,

more personal freedom is preferable to less personal freedom
avoiding harm is preferable to causing harm
health is preferable to sickness

etc

The point I am trying to get across is, that morality isn't something we invented, its something that we have discovered overtime, and are still working on, and we don't decide what's moral, we have to discover what's moral.

now whether a person understands this principles or not, doesn't stop the principles existing

 

[SirRumpole]

The 'filters' you describe are personal values that are capable of modification due to circumstances.

e.g.

"greater personal freedom is preferable to less personal freedom"

Should people have the freedom to walk the streets naked ? After all they are not hurting anyone, and if others get offended then it's not the naked persons fault.

etc etc.

A bloke in Britain has spent many years in gaol for exercising his personal freedom of nakedness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Gough

Are his actions moral or not ?

Were his arrests moral or not ?

 

[SirRumpole]

No one defines it, we discover it over time, through rational thought and an awareness of the consequences of our actions.

Ok, so if we have a gay marriage plebiscite and it goes down, would you agree that it was the most moral action at the time ?

 

[Value Collector]

Ok, so if we have a gay marriage plebiscite and it goes down, would you agree that it was the most moral action at the time ?

No, because it can be shown through the logical reasoned application of certain moral principles we have already discovered, that banning it would be immoral.

As I have continually said, morality is not based on popular opinion.

If you had a plebiscite, on something as simple as whether gravity pulls a 1kg hammer more than it pulls 10gram feather, we would probably get a majority vote saying the 1kg hammer gets pulled by gravity more, but the fact is it can be shown that gravity has the same effect on both, and gravity causes them to fall at the same rate, the publics misconceptions caused by various things would cause them to get the wrong answer, so they can easily get the wrong answer on a more complex topic.

 

[Value Collector]

The 'filters' you describe are personal values that are capable of modification due to circumstances.

no, they are not personal values, its an assessment of the consequences of certain actions in the physical world and how this affect the well being of other thinking creatures, this video explains it if you are interested.

 

[SirRumpole]

As I have continually said, morality is not based on popular opinion.

No, I think it's based on your opinion.

 

[Value Collector]

No, I think it's based on your opinion.

I have continually said its not based on any ones opinion, you are the one that thinks its based on group opinion and law, which actually makes we think we are talking about different things.

watch the video I posted, its an intro into the discussion.

 

[Tisme]

Morality is quite a simple concept = it's based on hurt.

If it hurts someone's feelings, if it hurts children's innocence, if it steals, if it upsets, etc.

Because of this there is a perpetrator and a victim. It's the degree of suffering we are prepared the victimised to endure that sets the ubiquitous low bar of morality....set it low enough and even the victimised feel victimised they are being redefined as the bullies of those on a lower rung .....human's are so fragile.

 

[SirRumpole]

I have continually said its not based on any ones opinion, you are the one that thinks its based on group opinion and law, which actually makes we think we are talking about different things.

watch the video I posted, its an intro into the discussion.

OK, so you have a couple of blokes sitting around making rules, their rules.

In order to convert these set of rules into a morality, they have to be popularly accepted as the right set of rules for defining a moral belief system.

People don't have to accept these rules, or they may decide to modify them. That's why we have a society and not an autocracy, and that is how laws are created, because a majority think that they are moral laws.

You may want to live by the rules set in that video, if you want others to then you need to sell them to the rest of us.

It comes down to the fact that morality has to been defined by humans according to rules made by humans, morality doesn't just exist all by itself.

 

[Value Collector]

In order to convert these set of rules into a morality, they have to be popularly accepted as the right set of rules for defining a moral belief system.

.

You wouldn't be converting these ideas into a morality, morality exists independent of what people think, you would be attempting to construct a moral system, that may or may not be close to the actual objective morality that exists.

People don't have to accept these rules, or they may decide to modify them. That's why we have a society and not an autocracy, and that is how laws are created, because a majority think that they are moral laws.

Yes but what I am saying is that when these moral principles are ignored, the system that results is a "Moral system" based on immorality , it doesn't suddenly become moral just because it is accepted by the masses, the adherents might describe the system as their moral system, but it doesn't represent morality.

I think that's the issue we are having here, you are talking about human constructed moral systems, I am talking about the underlying objective morality, its a bit like humans have constructed our "Theory of evolution", but we didn't construct real world evolution, that's a process that operates independently.

You may want to live by the rules set in that video, if you want others to then you need to sell them to the rest of us.

They didn't give a set of rules, they described a way to figure out what is moral.

It comes down to the fact that morality has to been defined by humans according to rules made by humans, morality doesn't just exist all by itself

nope, it exists independently, its just our job to try and figure out what it is and make our rules and decisions as close to it as possible. just like gravity can be defined by humans, but our definition doesn't change the physics of it.

 

[Value Collector]

Morality is quite a simple concept = it's based on hurt.

If it hurts someone's feelings, if it hurts children's innocence, if it steals, if it upsets, etc.

Because of this there is a perpetrator and a victim. It's the degree of suffering we are prepared the victimised to endure that sets the ubiquitous low bar of morality....set it low enough and even the victimised feel victimised they are being redefined as the bullies of those on a lower rung .....human's are so fragile.

I would say Harm is a better word than Hurt, and its one of the principles.
Along with personal freedom and a bunch of others.

Some people try and victimise them selves, in an attempt to prove they are being harmed or a losing freedom, so that they can skew the system to favour them, but that takes us away from a system based on actual morality.

In regards to Gay marriage, By allowing a gay couple to marry, we are giving them more freedom, by doing so we are acting inline with the moral principle that more freedom is preferable to less freedom.

In giving this freedom to same sex couples, no other group is losing any of their freedoms, and no other group is being harmed, So its a simple step towards making system a more moral system.

 

[Value Collector]

.....human's are so fragile.

Yes, some of them believe allowing couples of the same sex marry would some how hurt them and destroy their marriage.

 

[luutzu]

OK, so you have a couple of blokes sitting around making rules, their rules.

In order to convert these set of rules into a morality, they have to be popularly accepted as the right set of rules for defining a moral belief system.

People don't have to accept these rules, or they may decide to modify them. That's why we have a society and not an autocracy, and that is how laws are created, because a majority think that they are moral laws.

You may want to live by the rules set in that video, if you want others to then you need to sell them to the rest of us.

It comes down to the fact that morality has to been defined by humans according to rules made by humans, morality doesn't just exist all by itself.

I think what you and VC are arguing over is what they call the Natural Law vs the Legal Code. What is popular and legal is not necessarily what is moral, right? Case in point is gay marriage. How could a law that discriminate a group of people be considered moral?

I guess it would boils down to the Golden Rule - either preached by Jesus or the one by Confucius (and I am sure by many other philosophers) - that to not do unto others what you do not wish unto yourself.

If you don't want others to oppress your views and your freedom, don't do it onto others. We can all cite the children's welfare and whatnot to go against gay marriage but those arguments just don't stick when applied some rational and logical argument to it. And if, for the sake of the children and Western civilisation, we forget about logic and sense regarding gay parenting... well you can't really do that and also considered your stance a moral one.

 

[SirRumpole]

well you can't really do that and also considered your stance a moral one.

Well I think I can because I'm more concerned with children being deprived of biological parents that match the child's own sexuality and their consequent deprivation of the understanding of what it means to be heterosexual and be raised by your biological parents than I am with adults using the children to try and prove that they (the adults) are something they aren't.

I guess it would boils down to the Golden Rule - either preached by Jesus or the one by Confucius (and I am sure by many other philosophers) - that to not do unto others what you do not wish unto yourself.

Yes I can certainly agree with that Golden Rule. As a heterosexual I definitely would not want to be raised by gays and so I would not want to wish that on others either.

 

[SirRumpole]

nope, it exists independently, its just our job to try and figure out what it is and make our rules and decisions as close to it as possible. just like gravity can be defined by humans, but our definition doesn't change the physics of it.

I don't know, it's like arguing with a wall.

Can't you see the distinction between a physical law like gravity that everyone in the universe with the appropriate equipment would measure as being the same, and a set of rules devised by humans who have a different opinion of what rules make up a social system or their own individual morality ?

I've explained it enough, so I just have to assume that you are arguing for the sake of it and leave it at that.

 

[luutzu]

Well I think I can because I'm more concerned with children being deprived of biological parents that match the child's own sexuality and their consequent deprivation of the understanding of what it means to be heterosexual and be raised by your biological parents than I am with adults using the children to try and prove that they (the adults) are something they aren't.



Yes I can certainly agree with that Golden Rule. As a heterosexual I definitely would not want to be raised by gays and so I would not want to wish that on others either.

But you can't Rumpole.

As we've said before... if your objection against gay parenting is it's not good for the children, then you can't just stop at gay parenting. You first have to prove that gay parenting is detrimental to the child's well being - and anecdotal or a couple of cases won't be enough for that kind of proof... Then if you can prove that it's for the children's you need to apply it to other parenting style and other kind of parents too.

It can't just apply to gay parents.

Are you willing to not permit couples of low or no education to have kids? Poor couples can't have kids? How about mentally somewhat psychotic parents? Too competitive or too busy or too rich etc etc.

Must all parents pass some kind of test to then have children? If the answer is no, if you only apply the gayness test to good/bad parenting... well that's not logical.

That would be like, say, some genius in Canberra decided that those who live in rural Australia shouldn't have kids because we all know the gold standard is children ought to be metropolitan, farming is so last century and why should the Australian taxpayers fund hospitals and infrastructures so way off the map?

You can do that kind of stuff to the Aborigines and get away with it, maybe... but it doesn't pass the smell test man.

 

[SirRumpole]

But you can't Rumpole.

All the other cases you quoted, whether they are good or bad require A MAN AND A WOMAN.

Nature discriminates against gays having children. Evolution that is supposed to decide the best outcome for the species and it's been doing that for 4 billion years.

I'm quite happy to stick with that and say that anything else is Frankenstein science designed to achieve a social objective, and that is immoral in my opinion.

And furthermore I don't think the burden of proof should be on those opposing gay parenting. It should be on those who say it does no harm. I wouldn't ask you to take a drug that may cause you harm just so I can prove that it doesn't.