On 4/20/2007 11:17:36 AM kurgan wrote: There is no way to say that something wrong is ever justified. sorry, but the kurgan believes something that is wrong can not be justified.
So why express any opinions at all? There may always be something out there that would disconfirm your conclusions. That thing walking around looking indistinguishable from a donkey, behaving just like a donkey and going ee-aw might be a robot - you would, however, be justified in thinking it was a donkey, would you not?
On 4/20/2007 11:24:30 AM kurgan wrote: well, based upon the opinions of the liberals, secularists, agnostics, and atheists here and all that the Kurgan knows IRL, they are overwhelmingly amoral and morally laissez faire... and they attack those who are morally conservative. They are as intolerant of those who are morally conservative as they think the morally conservative are of others. That is based upon my own experience. There may be liberals et al. in existence that aren't, but the Kurgan has yet to meet one. The Kurgan will definitely leave the potential open for that to be true.
Therefore, you consider yourself justified in your statements about "teh liberals, teh agnostics, teh secularists etc". And yet, by your own standards you cannot be because your information is impoverished.
well, before the kurgan would act upon his assumptions (which might be based on ignorance of the matter in question... whether or not it was a donkey or robot) or before judging if it was truly a donkey or not, the kurgan would inquire about the donkey in question and make sure that it was in fact a donkey and not a robot.
First of all, when the Kurgan says "liberal", he is referring to "moral liberals"... not political liberals.
the kurgan will openly admit that he is voicing his subjective opinion on liberals (et al.) based upon his experiences here and IRL... the kurgan admits that not all liberals (et al.) are amoral or morally laissez faire, but the vast majority certainly are according to the Kurgan's experiences with them. The Kurgan will certainly leave the door open to the possible existence of a liberal (et al.) who is not amoral. The Kurgan is certainly open to educate himself about liberals (et al.) who have moral discipline... again, when the Kurgan says "liberal", he means "moral liberal"... and, yes, as it may irritate most liberals, secularists, agnostics, and atheists the kurgan knows, the Kurgan bases his sense of morality on the Revealed Scriptures of the Abrahamic religious traditions.
that is the difference... the kurgan admits to the possibility of needing to educate himself about the possibility of liberals (et al.) who are not amoral... the Kurgan is open to educating himself thus. But all the liberals (et al.), based on their comments here, are certainly amoral and morally laissez faire.
On 4/20/2007 11:32:59 AM kurgan wrote: well, before the kurgan would act upon his assumptions (which might be based on ignorance of the matter in question... whether or not it was a donkey or robot) or before judging if it was truly a donkey or not, the kurgan would inquire about the donkey in question and make sure that it was in fact a donkey and not a robot.
Why would you enquire about the donkey? What reason would you have to think it wasn't a donkey? None at all - you wouldn't go and check each member of a herd of donkeys before declaring that what you see is, in fact, a herd of donkeys.
However, even if you did inspect and enquire about this fake donkey, what good would it do? You might examine it to your heart's content, but it's possible that it's such a good imitation of a donkey that you'd not detect it. At best, you could not rule out this possibility, so again by your standards, you'd be unjustified in concluding that it was a donkey.
well, a moral liberal, in the kurgan's opinion, is someone who believes in that a plethora and multitude of moral behaviors are morally acceptible... and that morality is not something objective, but rather relative and subjective.
Moral liberals, for the kurgan, are those who believe in moral relativity and the relativity and subjectivity of morality.
In a nutshell, moral liberals, for the Kurgan, have a laissez faire attitude towards morality and moral behavior.
well, first of all the donkey metaphor is not exactly the most apt metaphor to use here... but the kurgan will use it nonetheless.
before the kurgan decided if the donkey in question was in fact a donkey and not a robot, then the kurgan would have to establish the fact that it was in fact a donkey and not a robot masquerading as a donkey... and he must know what constituted a real donkey and what distinguished real donkeys from robots masquerading as donkeys.
really, how does this donkey-robot metaphor relate to the discussion?
On 4/20/2007 12:02:27 PM kurgan wrote: well, a moral liberal, in the kurgan's opinion, is someone who believes in that a plethora and multitude of moral behaviors are morally acceptible... and that morality is not something objective, but rather relative and subjective. Moral liberals, for the kurgan, are those who believe in moral relativity and the relativity and subjectivity of morality. In a nutshell, moral liberals, for the Kurgan, have a laissez faire attitude towards morality and moral behavior.
ah that's me then, you can put me down as not amoral or morally laissez faire
As you know, "laissez faire" comes from the French meaning "to let do, allow to do, allow to occur"... the Kurgan is using it in that context, as well as in context of the popular understanding of "anything goes or anything is allowed"... of course you can see the logical connection how the literal meaning "to allow to do" has logically led to the meaning of "anything is allowed".
On 4/20/2007 12:09:30 PM kurgan wrote: before the kurgan decided if the donkey in question was in fact a donkey and not a robot, then the kurgan would have to establish the fact that it was in fact a donkey and not a robot masquerading as a donkey...
See my last post, as my response to what you say would be the same. The point is firstly that nobody - including you - behaves in that way; we conclude that what looks like a donkey is a donkey, and we consider ourselves justified in doing so. And secondly, that it wouldn't do any good if we did. Overall, I'm questioning your notion of justification, which entails that we can never draw a justified conclusion.
Why do you think that moral relativism entails that "anything goes"?
when someone believes in the relativity of morality, it is not a far step before that person decides to take a "anything goes" approach to morality.
if morals are relative, then who is to say what is morally right or wrong? thus, by this logic, soon nothing is considered objectively morally right or wrong because morality is all relative and subjective... and if there is no objective moral right and wrong, then anything is can be understood as morally acceptible... hence, anything goes (or anything is allowed).
On 4/20/2007 12:34:32 PM kurgan wrote: when someone believes in the relativity of morality, it is not a far step before that person decides to take a "anything goes" approach to morality.
Not so - they might reject the grounds for thinking that there can be objective moral truths, but that does not imply believing that "anything goes". They will still believe certain things are right or wrong, but they won't maintain that there is an objective basis for that.
What you are describing would seem to be someone who thinks that nothing is morally wrong, and presumably who flip-flops in their moral sensibilities. What is the basis for that?
I have found in many cases that atheists follow strict morals because they can't just say a few hail marys and be forgiven. Some Christians follow an anything goes approach because they believe they have a special relationship with God and he'll bail them out.
basically you can't assume how a person will behave from their religious beliefs
On 4/20/2007 10:32:31 AM kurgan wrote: just because a word may sound like another word, even though the two words are completely different, does not mean we should avoid using that word. anyone who jumps to conclusions without first trying to understand what the true meaning of the word is or its context therein is in the wrong... not the person using that word.
Point taken, but that's the problem--people jumping to conclusions. I'm not saying to avoid using the word, but keep in mind that people will hear what they want to hear and then jump on it like vultures on carrion. That's why I think the word should be treated with caution.
The Kurgan will make his last comment about this and then leave it at that... since the thread has gone far off-track from the question.
First off, the Kurgan will re-iterate his believe that if people are offended by a word or symbol without knowing it's true meaning or the context in which it is used, then the people who are offended are in the wrong, not the user of the word or the symbol. The person using the word or symbol is beyond reproach. If people get upset because they think "n***ardly" is the same as the "n- word", even though "n***ardly" and the "n-word" are completely different words and in no way connected, it is people who are offended that are in the wrong... before they get bent out of shape, maybe they should look up the meaning to "n***ardly" and increase their vocabulary.
And glenn and kyry, it is quite apparent that our premises about morality and it's origins are incompatible and mutually exclusive. You believe that morality is relative and subjective, while the Kurgan believes morality is objective. The Kurgan believes that morality comes from God as He revealed it through the Prophets in the Revealed Scriptures... thus, there is an objective good and evil, right and wrong, truth and falsehood, knowledge and ignorance, reality and illusion, orthodoxy and heterodoxy, orthopraxy and heteropraxy, salvation and damnation, redemption and perdition. Will we see who is right and who is wrong in the End... until that Day, for me my belief, for you yours.
Granted, there is "grey area" in the area of morality, but that, by and large, is man-made.
If we look to the Revealed Scriptures of the Abrahamic religions (ie. the Hebrew Scriptures, the Xtian Scriptures, and the Qur'an and Hadith), we see that although some of the finer points of the Law are for an individual community, the morality of the Law and the moral prohibitions therein (ie. prohibitions against: polytheism, idolatry, blasphemy, murder, fornication and adultery, homosexual activity, theft, lying and giving false witness, etc.) is universal for the three Scriptures and the three religions (Judaism, Xtianity, and Islam).
The Kurgan has thus spoken his peace and will allow the thread to go back to its original question. The Kurgan has spoken and has left the building.
On your first point, it may well be the case that what you say is correct, but it's also irrelevant to what we were talking about. You admitted you would exercise caution where things are concerned that could be grievously misunderstood.
On 4/22/2007 7:21:08 PM kurgan wrote: And glenn and kyry, it is quite apparent that our premises about morality and it's origins are incompatible and mutually exclusive. You believe that morality is relative and subjective...
No - I didn't say I was a moral relativist. I simply disagreed that your own conception of what a moral relativist is captures the reality of this view. In fact, you emphatically underline this in what you just said by your apparent conflation of moral relativism with epistemological relativism. I do, however, think that if morality is objective then it cannot be prescribed by any individual (ie, I think the position of divine command ethics is false).