First  Prev  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next  Last
Polygamy
13761 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 9/27/12

longfenglim wrote:

No, I will not 'agree to disagree'- you are obviously wrong, and need to be shown that you are wrong.

You are wrong about the relativity of morality, and you contradicted your own premise with the statement 'it is morally superior to be faithful to a single spouse'.

If you do not want to address the broader, ethical question of the moral realism or antirealism, at least, then, show by what means you can say something is 'morally superior' or 'morally inferior', while denying there is an objective standard. How do you reconcile the relativity of morality with the very notion that you are entitled to some sort of moral judgement?

If we were to accept your notion of moral relativity as true, then we have no basis to make any moral pronouncement, so nothing can be judged as morally superior or inferior, thus, by your own standards, your pronouncement that 'it is morally superior to be faithful to a single spouse' is invalid, as it presupposes some form of objective morality.


1. I argued that morality is local and I've presented my reasons....

2. I believe our society sees being faithful to a single spouse as a virtue...

3. Hence I feel the way I feel...
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 9/27/12

shuyi000 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

No, I will not 'agree to disagree'- you are obviously wrong, and need to be shown that you are wrong.

You are wrong about the relativity of morality, and you contradicted your own premise with the statement 'it is morally superior to be faithful to a single spouse'.

If you do not want to address the broader, ethical question of the moral realism or antirealism, at least, then, show by what means you can say something is 'morally superior' or 'morally inferior', while denying there is an objective standard. How do you reconcile the relativity of morality with the very notion that you are entitled to some sort of moral judgement?

If we were to accept your notion of moral relativity as true, then we have no basis to make any moral pronouncement, so nothing can be judged as morally superior or inferior, thus, by your own standards, your pronouncement that 'it is morally superior to be faithful to a single spouse' is invalid, as it presupposes some form of objective morality.


1. I argued that morality is local and I've presented my reasons....

2. I believe our society sees being faithful to a single spouse as a virtue...

3. Hence I feel the way I feel...





Is it immoral to have multiple mates? No.
But I argue that it is morally superior to be faithful.


I have aptly shown the morals are not, and, by their nature, cannot be relative or socially constructed, so I shall skip over that argument, and address your argument, its illogicality, and its implication.

First, you have argued that morality is a socailly constructed concept. The consequence of this is, of course, moral relativism, that is, that there is no basis to judge if something is right or wrong, and all things are right or wrong based upon a culture, so, the only method of analysing any action is to judge it by the standard of that culture. This would mean, of coursse, that since society values (morals as you call them) changes as time changes, and then to believe something else at another moment would be moral, and so, to hold that 'society thinks so and so would be fallacious argument, as the basis on which you create your argument is ever changing, and an invalid measure of morality. To give an analogy, if we were to measure a table in some unit of measurement, and we can't measure it based upon a varying and ever changing scale, but an fixed unit accepted by everyone, otherwise, our measurment would be invalid. That is why no one measures their fence in 'climbing vines' or 'potted minature trees', but in a fixed unit like centimetres or metres or foots of miles. Thus, you cannot argue that 'our society sees being faithful to a single spouse as a virtue' because this value is only temporeal, and could change by the time you finished your post. Ergo, you cannot argue that Polygamy is a vice or virtue based upon this, or that it is morally superior or inferior. QED.

But, it is also very distressing in its implication- that is, society demands such, and we should follow it, au pied de la lettre. Therefore, speaking out against society would not only constitute an immoral action, but to act in such a way that opposes it at that moment. Therefore, people like Martin Luther King, Jr., the Abolitionists, the White Rose, La Resistance, etc. would all be immoral people for opposing their society, which they fault. Therefore, the implication is that we should be servile to society, be slaves to it, never deviate from it, and never speak out against it. Thus, we should quietly sit by as our society bombs children's hospital in enemy countries or to have our suspected enemies thrown into torture chambers, to be broke by the wheel or to be whipped and flayed. If nothing's good but what society dictates, then we are trapped in silence and quietism- there is no wrong to speak out against, there is no right to defend, there is only putting up and shutting up.
Posted 9/29/12
If all those involved in the relationship are comfortable with it, I see no problem with polygamy.
13761 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 10/3/12

longfenglim wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

No, I will not 'agree to disagree'- you are obviously wrong, and need to be shown that you are wrong.

You are wrong about the relativity of morality, and you contradicted your own premise with the statement 'it is morally superior to be faithful to a single spouse'.

If you do not want to address the broader, ethical question of the moral realism or antirealism, at least, then, show by what means you can say something is 'morally superior' or 'morally inferior', while denying there is an objective standard. How do you reconcile the relativity of morality with the very notion that you are entitled to some sort of moral judgement?

If we were to accept your notion of moral relativity as true, then we have no basis to make any moral pronouncement, so nothing can be judged as morally superior or inferior, thus, by your own standards, your pronouncement that 'it is morally superior to be faithful to a single spouse' is invalid, as it presupposes some form of objective morality.


1. I argued that morality is local and I've presented my reasons....

2. I believe our society sees being faithful to a single spouse as a virtue...

3. Hence I feel the way I feel...





Is it immoral to have multiple mates? No.
But I argue that it is morally superior to be faithful.


I have aptly shown the morals are not, and, by their nature, cannot be relative or socially constructed, so I shall skip over that argument, and address your argument, its illogicality, and its implication.

First, you have argued that morality is a socailly constructed concept. The consequence of this is, of course, moral relativism, that is, that there is no basis to judge if something is right or wrong, and all things are right or wrong based upon a culture, so, the only method of analysing any action is to judge it by the standard of that culture. This would mean, of coursse, that since society values (morals as you call them) changes as time changes, and then to believe something else at another moment would be moral, and so, to hold that 'society thinks so and so would be fallacious argument, as the basis on which you create your argument is ever changing, and an invalid measure of morality. To give an analogy, if we were to measure a table in some unit of measurement, and we can't measure it based upon a varying and ever changing scale, but an fixed unit accepted by everyone, otherwise, our measurment would be invalid. That is why no one measures their fence in 'climbing vines' or 'potted minature trees', but in a fixed unit like centimetres or metres or foots of miles. Thus, you cannot argue that 'our society sees being faithful to a single spouse as a virtue' because this value is only temporeal, and could change by the time you finished your post. Ergo, you cannot argue that Polygamy is a vice or virtue based upon this, or that it is morally superior or inferior. QED.

But, it is also very distressing in its implication- that is, society demands such, and we should follow it, au pied de la lettre. Therefore, speaking out against society would not only constitute an immoral action, but to act in such a way that opposes it at that moment. Therefore, people like Martin Luther King, Jr., the Abolitionists, the White Rose, La Resistance, etc. would all be immoral people for opposing their society, which they fault. Therefore, the implication is that we should be servile to society, be slaves to it, never deviate from it, and never speak out against it. Thus, we should quietly sit by as our society bombs children's hospital in enemy countries or to have our suspected enemies thrown into torture chambers, to be broke by the wheel or to be whipped and flayed. If nothing's good but what society dictates, then we are trapped in silence and quietism- there is no wrong to speak out against, there is no right to defend, there is only putting up and shutting up.


Yes, they would be considered immoral by moral standards of their time...
Just like how it's immoral to question the church during the dark age Europe...
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/3/12 , edited 10/3/12

shuyi000 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

No, I will not 'agree to disagree'- you are obviously wrong, and need to be shown that you are wrong.

You are wrong about the relativity of morality, and you contradicted your own premise with the statement 'it is morally superior to be faithful to a single spouse'.

If you do not want to address the broader, ethical question of the moral realism or antirealism, at least, then, show by what means you can say something is 'morally superior' or 'morally inferior', while denying there is an objective standard. How do you reconcile the relativity of morality with the very notion that you are entitled to some sort of moral judgement?

If we were to accept your notion of moral relativity as true, then we have no basis to make any moral pronouncement, so nothing can be judged as morally superior or inferior, thus, by your own standards, your pronouncement that 'it is morally superior to be faithful to a single spouse' is invalid, as it presupposes some form of objective morality.


1. I argued that morality is local and I've presented my reasons....

2. I believe our society sees being faithful to a single spouse as a virtue...

3. Hence I feel the way I feel...





Is it immoral to have multiple mates? No.
But I argue that it is morally superior to be faithful.


I have aptly shown the morals are not, and, by their nature, cannot be relative or socially constructed, so I shall skip over that argument, and address your argument, its illogicality, and its implication.

First, you have argued that morality is a socailly constructed concept. The consequence of this is, of course, moral relativism, that is, that there is no basis to judge if something is right or wrong, and all things are right or wrong based upon a culture, so, the only method of analysing any action is to judge it by the standard of that culture. This would mean, of coursse, that since society values (morals as you call them) changes as time changes, and then to believe something else at another moment would be moral, and so, to hold that 'society thinks so and so would be fallacious argument, as the basis on which you create your argument is ever changing, and an invalid measure of morality. To give an analogy, if we were to measure a table in some unit of measurement, and we can't measure it based upon a varying and ever changing scale, but an fixed unit accepted by everyone, otherwise, our measurment would be invalid. That is why no one measures their fence in 'climbing vines' or 'potted minature trees', but in a fixed unit like centimetres or metres or foots of miles. Thus, you cannot argue that 'our society sees being faithful to a single spouse as a virtue' because this value is only temporeal, and could change by the time you finished your post. Ergo, you cannot argue that Polygamy is a vice or virtue based upon this, or that it is morally superior or inferior. QED.

But, it is also very distressing in its implication- that is, society demands such, and we should follow it, au pied de la lettre. Therefore, speaking out against society would not only constitute an immoral action, but to act in such a way that opposes it at that moment. Therefore, people like Martin Luther King, Jr., the Abolitionists, the White Rose, La Resistance, etc. would all be immoral people for opposing their society, which they fault. Therefore, the implication is that we should be servile to society, be slaves to it, never deviate from it, and never speak out against it. Thus, we should quietly sit by as our society bombs children's hospital in enemy countries or to have our suspected enemies thrown into torture chambers, to be broke by the wheel or to be whipped and flayed. If nothing's good but what society dictates, then we are trapped in silence and quietism- there is no wrong to speak out against, there is no right to defend, there is only putting up and shutting up.


Yes, they would be considered immoral by moral standards of their time...
Just like how it's immoral to question the church during the dark age Europe...


So, you are basically saying it is immoral to question the Nazis if you live in Nazi Germany, or slavery if you live in the Ante-bellum south...and it is moral and right that we should willingly stand against the wall and wait for gendarmes to shoot us for no other reason than 'dermacle pigmentation is not within acceptable standards'. I am sure, however, that, should this be the case, you would not be willing to sacrifice yourself to this abstract notion of 'moral' and 'immoral' being socially constructed.

Sarcasm, I know, does not argue, but ridicule, but your position is too ridiculous to even take seriously- you are saying that it was wrong to question the Church during the Dark Ages- when were these 'Dark Ages'? And why would it be wrong to question the Church? Could it not be that the Church was morally wrong to silence opposition?

Could it be that the advances of Civil Rights, and the battle for the furtherment of Civil Rights, that is equality for Different Ethnic Groups, for Homosexuals, for Women, etc., are all founded on more moral principles than their opponents? And that Society itself was wrong?

Could it be that, because Society- any Society- does not have a coherent and unified set of morality, Morality cannot be said to be socially constructed?

But this does not address my critique- that is, you are trying to make a pronouncement of something as morally superior or inferior where you disclaim any right to make any moral pronouncement, so, either you acknowledge that you are unable to say that 'it is morally superior to be faithful to a single spouse', or you disclaim your former position, 'there is nothing moral but what society makes of it'.
13761 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 10/5/12

longfenglim wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

No, I will not 'agree to disagree'- you are obviously wrong, and need to be shown that you are wrong.

You are wrong about the relativity of morality, and you contradicted your own premise with the statement 'it is morally superior to be faithful to a single spouse'.

If you do not want to address the broader, ethical question of the moral realism or antirealism, at least, then, show by what means you can say something is 'morally superior' or 'morally inferior', while denying there is an objective standard. How do you reconcile the relativity of morality with the very notion that you are entitled to some sort of moral judgement?

If we were to accept your notion of moral relativity as true, then we have no basis to make any moral pronouncement, so nothing can be judged as morally superior or inferior, thus, by your own standards, your pronouncement that 'it is morally superior to be faithful to a single spouse' is invalid, as it presupposes some form of objective morality.


1. I argued that morality is local and I've presented my reasons....

2. I believe our society sees being faithful to a single spouse as a virtue...

3. Hence I feel the way I feel...





Is it immoral to have multiple mates? No.
But I argue that it is morally superior to be faithful.


I have aptly shown the morals are not, and, by their nature, cannot be relative or socially constructed, so I shall skip over that argument, and address your argument, its illogicality, and its implication.

First, you have argued that morality is a socailly constructed concept. The consequence of this is, of course, moral relativism, that is, that there is no basis to judge if something is right or wrong, and all things are right or wrong based upon a culture, so, the only method of analysing any action is to judge it by the standard of that culture. This would mean, of coursse, that since society values (morals as you call them) changes as time changes, and then to believe something else at another moment would be moral, and so, to hold that 'society thinks so and so would be fallacious argument, as the basis on which you create your argument is ever changing, and an invalid measure of morality. To give an analogy, if we were to measure a table in some unit of measurement, and we can't measure it based upon a varying and ever changing scale, but an fixed unit accepted by everyone, otherwise, our measurment would be invalid. That is why no one measures their fence in 'climbing vines' or 'potted minature trees', but in a fixed unit like centimetres or metres or foots of miles. Thus, you cannot argue that 'our society sees being faithful to a single spouse as a virtue' because this value is only temporeal, and could change by the time you finished your post. Ergo, you cannot argue that Polygamy is a vice or virtue based upon this, or that it is morally superior or inferior. QED.

But, it is also very distressing in its implication- that is, society demands such, and we should follow it, au pied de la lettre. Therefore, speaking out against society would not only constitute an immoral action, but to act in such a way that opposes it at that moment. Therefore, people like Martin Luther King, Jr., the Abolitionists, the White Rose, La Resistance, etc. would all be immoral people for opposing their society, which they fault. Therefore, the implication is that we should be servile to society, be slaves to it, never deviate from it, and never speak out against it. Thus, we should quietly sit by as our society bombs children's hospital in enemy countries or to have our suspected enemies thrown into torture chambers, to be broke by the wheel or to be whipped and flayed. If nothing's good but what society dictates, then we are trapped in silence and quietism- there is no wrong to speak out against, there is no right to defend, there is only putting up and shutting up.


Yes, they would be considered immoral by moral standards of their time...
Just like how it's immoral to question the church during the dark age Europe...


So, you are basically saying it is immoral to question the Nazis if you live in Nazi Germany, or slavery if you live in the Ante-bellum south...and it is moral and right that we should willingly stand against the wall and wait for gendarmes to shoot us for no other reason than 'dermacle pigmentation is not within acceptable standards'. I am sure, however, that, should this be the case, you would not be willing to sacrifice yourself to this abstract notion of 'moral' and 'immoral' being socially constructed.

Sarcasm, I know, does not argue, but ridicule, but your position is too ridiculous to even take seriously- you are saying that it was wrong to question the Church during the Dark Ages- when were these 'Dark Ages'? And why would it be wrong to question the Church? Could it not be that the Church was morally wrong to silence opposition?

Could it be that the advances of Civil Rights, and the battle for the furtherment of Civil Rights, that is equality for Different Ethnic Groups, for Homosexuals, for Women, etc., are all founded on more moral principles than their opponents? And that Society itself was wrong?

Could it be that, because Society- any Society- does not have a coherent and unified set of morality, Morality cannot be said to be socially constructed?

But this does not address my critique- that is, you are trying to make a pronouncement of something as morally superior or inferior where you disclaim any right to make any moral pronouncement, so, either you acknowledge that you are unable to say that 'it is morally superior to be faithful to a single spouse', or you disclaim your former position, 'there is nothing moral but what society makes of it'.


My argument is based on morality defined by the society itself...
... I argued that morality is local, people are born into a society with its set of morality...
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/5/12 , edited 10/5/12

shuyi000 wrote:


My argument is based on morality defined by the society itself...
... I argued that morality is local, people are born into a society with its set of morality...


You have a way of not answering my question- if morality is local, and relative to society, then how can you argue that something 'morally superior' or 'inferior' given that:

1. Society is a vague concept, and, in itself, has no agreed set of morality

2. When, by your argument, you are in no position to criticise Polygamy if their society condones it- for example, if a Mahometan or a Mormon wants to take another wife, by arguing that it is 'morally superior' to be faithful to a single spouse, are you not forcing your society's morals onto their own society, with its own moral, and neither of them can be seen as 'better' or 'worse' than the other?

Forgive the use of colours, it breaks the monotony of black. Now, say that you are right, are you willing to accept the consequence of Morality being relative to society, such as in our hypothetical situation where our society decides that it is wrong and an evil to be any less white than Wonder Bread, necessitating the elimination of Coloured people- would you, by your own definition of morality, be willing to stand up and stand still against the wall while they aim their rifle at you?
13761 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 10/12/12

longfenglim wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:


My argument is based on morality defined by the society itself...
... I argued that morality is local, people are born into a society with its set of morality...


You have a way of not answering my question- if morality is local, and relative to society, then how can you argue that something 'morally superior' or 'inferior' given that:

1. Society is a vague concept, and, in itself, has no agreed set of morality

2. When, by your argument, you are in no position to criticise Polygamy if their society condones it
- for example, if a Mahometan or a Mormon wants to take another wife, by arguing that it is 'morally superior' to be faithful to a single spouse, are you not forcing your society's morals onto their own society, with its own moral, and neither of them can be seen as 'better' or 'worse' than the other?

Forgive the use of colours, it breaks the monotony of black. Now, say that you are right, are you willing to accept the consequence of Morality being relative to society, such as in our hypothetical situation where our society decides that it is wrong and an evil to be any less white than Wonder Bread, necessitating the elimination of Coloured people- would you, by your own definition of morality, be willing to stand up and stand still against the wall while they aim their rifle at you?

If you say that morality is universe, then in which part of our evolution did it come from.
Who/what gave us our universal sets of morality...?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/12/12 , edited 10/12/12

shuyi000 wrote:

If you say that morality is universe, then in which part of our evolution did it come from.
Who/what gave us our universal sets of morality...?



Is this a trick question? To be Universal and Objective, it must exist beyond human subjectivity, and so, beyond the evolutionary process. These things are moral regardless of whether you are human, or Martian, or whatever, because they are essentially good. You are trying to apply limited Human subjectivity to an Objective fact.
13761 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 10/13/12

longfenglim wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:

If you say that morality is universe, then in which part of our evolution did it come from.
Who/what gave us our universal sets of morality...?



Is this a trick question? To be Universal and Objective, it must exist beyond human subjectivity, and so, beyond the evolutionary process. These things are moral regardless of whether you are human, or Martian, or whatever, because they are essentially good. You are trying to apply limited Human subjectivity to an Objective fact.


So dogs also obey the same sets of morality as us?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/13/12 , edited 10/13/12

shuyi000 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:

If you say that morality is universe, then in which part of our evolution did it come from.
Who/what gave us our universal sets of morality...?



Is this a trick question? To be Universal and Objective, it must exist beyond human subjectivity, and so, beyond the evolutionary process. These things are moral regardless of whether you are human, or Martian, or whatever, because they are essentially good. You are trying to apply limited Human subjectivity to an Objective fact.


So dogs also obey the same sets of morality as us?


Some argue that they do.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html


But, please, if you want to argue against the objectivity of morals, do answer the points I already made instead of answering in irrelevant pithy sarcasms.
13761 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 10/14/12

longfenglim wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:

If you say that morality is universe, then in which part of our evolution did it come from.
Who/what gave us our universal sets of morality...?



Is this a trick question? To be Universal and Objective, it must exist beyond human subjectivity, and so, beyond the evolutionary process. These things are moral regardless of whether you are human, or Martian, or whatever, because they are essentially good. You are trying to apply limited Human subjectivity to an Objective fact.


So dogs also obey the same sets of morality as us?


Some argue that they do.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html


But, please, if you want to argue against the objectivity of morals, do answer the points I already made instead of answering in irrelevant pithy sarcasms.


State said question...
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/14/12

shuyi000 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


shuyi000 wrote:

If you say that morality is universe, then in which part of our evolution did it come from.
Who/what gave us our universal sets of morality...?



Is this a trick question? To be Universal and Objective, it must exist beyond human subjectivity, and so, beyond the evolutionary process. These things are moral regardless of whether you are human, or Martian, or whatever, because they are essentially good. You are trying to apply limited Human subjectivity to an Objective fact.


So dogs also obey the same sets of morality as us?


Some argue that they do.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html


But, please, if you want to argue against the objectivity of morals, do answer the points I already made instead of answering in irrelevant pithy sarcasms.


State said question...


They are not so much questions as objections-

http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-69742/polygamy?pg=19#41149424

Let me give two arguments, commonplace arguments, I may add, against Moral Relativism, and I ask that you kindly answer them directly, as you have been avoiding any serious ethical discussion thus far-

1. Morals are objective, otherwise what we would obviously call wrong, like a certain genocide by a certain ethnic group upon another, we would have to accept as a moral course of action. The objection that we can say that it is wrong from our own standpoint is fallacious, in this case, because there is nothing to make our standpoint more valid than the genocidal death squads.

2. Morals are objective, and not based upon the society. If it were, then it is moral to conform to society, and thus, if that society binds men to accept all of its action. So, if our government bombs civilians in Northern Pakistan in search of Terrorist, kills an American Citizen without trial, or routinely hunts down whistle-blowers and act without the consent or consultation of any of the other branch of government, we have no reason to decry these action, but accept them. Therefore, we are no longer able to decry the government in moral terms, in terms of freedom, liberty, and all that, and all abridgement of our liberty, so long as they prove to be efficiently fascist, should be quietly accepted. If we do react against an unjust society, then we are acting, in fact, immorally, if we opposed segregation decades ago, or if we oppose slavery over a century ago, we would be acting immorally. This is, however, obviously not the case, societies, we know, can err, as our own society shows, and reformers do exist to institute moral reforms to the system.
7431 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / United States
Offline
Posted 10/15/12
In a nutshell? It works for some and not so well for others. I think it just depends on your heritage, environment, and personal expectations for a romantic relationship.
First  Prev  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.