₦airaland Forum

Joshthefirst:
I hope wiegraf is just bluffing. I hope he is all words here. I hope he will certainly discipline his children when they do wrong.

O, mark my words, he certainly will.

However when asked why he does that, in light of his view that all morality is subjective only, he will, as he has done here already, respond by saying that it is ok since he admits to being a hypocrite.

Sheeeeeeeeessshhh!

Touche!

Joshthefirst:

I'd be appaled if this was his opinion.

Well again, that would just be your subjective perspective so it could not possibly matter to him.

Lol!

When I have the energy I must really devote sometime to go into every detail of why the positions here are the most absurd.... and even dishonest, ever.

Joshthefirst: A better way to ask the question: would you punish or rather discipline your child, if he goes around stealing? Since you believe there is nothing intrinsically wrong with his moral position?

K.O!

Don't expect a straight up answer bro.

Joshthefirst: you're the one trying to toss curve balls.

Yes. I am asking for your opinion.

His opinion is that he does not like it, but he cannot condemn his son for it..... cos its subjective.

In fact, while his son grows up, he cannot ever say to him that x is right or y is wrong. ... because its all subjective.

Joker.

wiegraf: Do you actually think you've tossed some sort of curve ball with this nonsense?

Are you asking for my opinion?

Lol. Scaredy catty.

You know the simple child like question whoops all your drivel to shreds.

wiegraf: A society's moral code is in no way absolute or objective, it's simply that society's subjective code. S-i-m-p-l-e

Just making that clear

You should even ask yourself about the question - whose subjectivity within the society?

In Saudi Arabia, whose subjectivity imposes effective gender aparthied on women.

Are the women in the minority, even, and how does that change things. Since your position is that might is right, the gender apartheid in Saudi, is, according to you, right, notwithstanding whose subjectivity is imposing it.

Your world view on this matter, with due respect, is a veritable cascade of pitiful, lamentable, perverse, and even morally bankrupt contradictions which evince a wholesale lack of ethics or ethical consideration whatsoever[/quote]

plaetton: ^^^
.

There is no moral dilemma because the individual surrenders some rights and the society reciprocates by giving him other rights.

.... Except that in this instance which we speak of, the rights are not voluntarily surrendered by the minority who disagree, the rights are forcefully seized by the (as you claim) subjective moral paradigm of other people - by reason only of their superior numbers.

Point.

plaetton: You are the lawyer. You know that it is the way it really works.
Consensus does not mean that everyone single person agrees with it.
If we needed every single person to agree on every single norm or rule, confusion, conflict and anarchy would ensue.

First off, I hope Uyi Iredia can be schooled by this little, on how strict subjectivism would amount to anarchy; for he says that he does not know that to be true!

But on to the content of this post -

You therefore assert that -

Because anarchy would result from standing by strict subjectivism by way of seeking full agreement of every person before establishing a law, the society is left with no choice but to impose the law on even those who do not agree with the law.

This is statement of how and why the moral paradigm of the minority is sacrificed: it is NOT a statement that reconciles the moral dilemma:

<- - - - - ALL morality is strictly and entirely subjective - - - - -VS - - - -It is right to suppress the moral paradigms of the minority - - - - - >

The moral dilemma above is not resolved by your answer: all you have done is to concede the practical reason why majority rule must prevail and be imposed. This is a practical answer to resolve your practical problem, but I hope you see very clearly that it does not resolve your moral problem. For your statement to remain consistent, you should substitute the word "right" with the word "practical" in the diagram above.

You cannot at once say that all morality is entirely subjective and then hold it right to allow some people to impose their subjective morality on other people. You may hold it practical, but you cannot hold it morally right. This is the basis on which you have, for example, courts which are empowered to invalidate even laws made by the majority, on the grounds that such laws violate the rights of a minority or minorities.

Two principles are at play here -

- - -> Might is right

- - - > Expedience is right

Both are principles that your position ineluctably leads to, for you infer that, in order to avoid anarchy, then the subjective moral paradigms of minority view points must be trampled upon.

As I said above, that is a practical statement of expediency: and not a moral statement or a moral judgement.

Moral judgments pertain to that which is considered right and wrong, not just that which is considered expedient or practical: I hope you see this point clearly.

Once these subjective paradigms are accepted as norms, then everyone , pro and con , fall within it's scope

Why? How so? Can you not see the lack of moral basis of this statement?

Why should this be so - tell me why it is morally apt, and not why it is merely expedient please. Unless of course, you wish to adopt the position of the second principle above, which says that expedience is morality. If you wish to adopt that position, do not forget to consider also what would be expedient (or practical) for the minority as well. And how this may impact the existence of societies.

For example, I don't have any moral problems with the practice of polygamy.
But if I were to become a judge or a law enforcement officer in US or Canada, I would have no choice but to prosecute and jail people for the what would now be a crime of polygamy.

You have spoken to how things work, and not why it is morally right for them to work that way.

Mind you: there are many people of faith who would rather die than comply with a secular law that they consider immoral. The point here being that showing how things play out (such as in your example above) does not suffice to address the morality of this or that action.

plaetton: Yes morality is subjective, but morality most often evolves by group or community consensus.

Therefore, a person has the right and a basis to condemn the actions of another based on the established or evolved moral boundaries of the particular group or population.

Why should anybody who believes that morality is strictly and entirely subjective condemn any one else's moral choices?

And it does not have to matter what the moral compass or boundaries of the individual perpertrator might be.

This would be hypocrisy, no?

What you have just stated is that a person who believes, for example, that theft is NOT wrong, has a right and a basis to condemn thieves - on account of the rules set in place based on the subjective paradigms of other people - which paradigm, neither he nor the thief agree with.

Do you think this is a rational and consistent position to take: and would you be surprised if no one takes such a position seriously?

Uyi Iredia: The starkly nonsensical conclusion is maintaining that absolute morality eternally exists in human perceptions and are the basis of positive and natural law;

You are making VERY elementary errors that still show that you still do not know what is being discussed here, as I said before.

Nobody ever says, nor is it ever said, that any absolute morality is the basis of any positive law.

Indeed, what this discloses is that, despite my references left for you, and your own (claimed) reading on Positive Law, you actually still have yet to understand what Positive Law refers to: otherwise you would have never made such a statement as the above, or claimed that some one else was saying so - for nobody says so.

That statement is only accurate for natural laws - and NOT, NEVER, for positive laws. The very definition of positive laws runs counter to such an assertion.

Uyi, please before undertaking any subject, even if seemingly simple subjects, at least take some trouble to understand the precepts at play.

The statemeht above from you is embarrassing.

ignoring the fact that, the very fact of dispute over such laws (and absolute morals by extension), nullifies the said conclusion.

You should note that whereas you and others have disputed the question of moral absolutism, you do not quibble, for example, that you have a problem that there are laws against murder. In fact, I would ask you to produce any person who says such, please.

There you go!

'Absolute' suggests that the morality, though expressed differently, is universally accepted and SELF-EVIDENT. I note you TOTALLY ignored my request to bring examples of natural laws for analysis:

This is because I had already produced two such examples: and I analysed them: it is not my bother if you refuse to read same and task yourself on the issues at play.

I can restate them:

Universal and self-evident: There should be laws against murder.

Universal and self-evident: there should be laws against r.ape.

Universal and self-evident: there should be laws against theft.

- - -> And I assert that no society anywhere, can exist in the absence of such universal and self-evident laws. These "natural laws" are embedded in the very intrinsic nature of society itself: indeed the word "society" would be inconceivable in the absence of these universal and self-evident precepts.

Please sir: educate yourself: these are not matters covered under the realm of positive law: it is not universal and self evident, for example, that I should not park my car at x or y location, in terms of traffic regulations for example. That, sir, is not a natural law, and as such, contains no moral absolute, which you tragically and scandalously mis-conceived in your opening words above.

you diatribe my stance stating agreement 'is neither here nor there' when the very process of legislation, its interpretation by the judiciary, and its enforcement by the executive involves agreement at every level, whereitbe tacit or explicit . . .

Because, you dodo, the process of legislation is NOT the issue here, but the jurisprudential justification for majority rule in the first place!

- - -> If you SAY, that all morality is entirely subjective, then for the umpteenth time, please on what basis should force be used, to impose the moral paradigm of the majority on the minority? Why, this is a simple question which you have danced around and as yet have failed to produce a cogent response to.

- - -> Because, of course, the only case in which it can be said to be right to impose such laws, is the event where such are recognized as mala in se - i.e: intrinsically wrong, in tandem with natural law.

do you perchance tell your judge in court the legal process 'is neither here nor there'.

Again, as seems to have missed you above, this discussion is not a legal process. A legal process follows positive laws and regulations already set out and established by a sovereign authority. This discussion is not in any way a legal process and legal processes have nothing to do with it.

Again, this shows without a shadow of doubt how terribly distant you are from having even the slightest idea of what is being discussed here. Your examples and posers only serve to reveal that you are having a discussion without knowing the topic being discussed. You are very lost here, sir.

This discussion is a philosophic break-down of the basis of societal morality - a jurisprudential discussion and not a legal process discussion. And even at that, more philosophy than usual, even for jurisprudence, is at play here.

You assert that the subjugation of a minority is wrong and think I'm ignorant of this so-called-by-Deep Sight 'anarchaic postulation'.

I have never asserted that, and this is again another proof of how lost you are in this discussion!

I have rather questioned you about the basis for such subjugation if it is true that ALL morality is indeed strictly subjective. If your contention is true, then you cannot simultaneously agree that such subjugation is right. That is an irredeemable contradiction.

You state . . .

please could you justify your claim here in light of my earlier statement below . . .

. . . keeping in mind how you disgraced the spirit of enquiry with your response to that point as evidenced below . . .

And you are not embarrassed to argue that in the absence of agreement, subjective minority views should be put down by force, whilst at the same time contending that ALL morality is subjective only? ? ? ?

Good grief.

Uyi Iredia: Examples of such natural law, ignoring the fact it is humans that DIVINE them to VARIED extents.

Being a human being (in fact being any type of being) you are always caged by your perception: everything you know and can say is ONLY ever from your perception - such that it has even asserted that we cannot validly and objectively know that the world exists at all, outside our perception. It is for this reason, that, like Plaetton, you miss the point that this drone on subjective perception which you still quibble at, is and remains an apt response and rebuttal to any possible statement or argument that can ever be made, or that has ever been made. If you had read the link I provided on my last revert to Plaetton on same subject, you ought to have grasped that point. You would have seen why you cannot objectively ever know, for example, whether the words you are reading now, actually are there or not.

Now therefore, it is with the very same perception, that we yet make distinctions such as -

- Malum in se

- Malum prohibitum

And again, it is with the very same perception that we still make distinctions such as -

- natural law

- positive law

Each of these distinctions, is, as with everything else which we know, resident still and eternally within our perceptions.

The question for you, is why, within our perceptions, we make these distinctions at all.

For, if your contention that all morality is subjective only holds true, then you can by no means (and you have not yet) show(n) what would ever be the justification of the existence of any uniform criminal laws to govern people - or, any laws for that matter. In one instance, wiegraf says such should be determined by force of wills - which says nothing of morality as it simply arrogates might as right. In another instance - you - say - that such should be resolved by agreement - which is still neither here nor there unless your agreement is unanimous - which is often impossible - and this position of yours blithely ignores those of minority dispositions and their own entitlements to their subjective moral paradigms. Worse, you even stated that trampling upon their subjective moral paradigms would then be right in your own subjective paradigm - and it beats me that you yet claim ignorance of what an anarchic postulation that is: ignoring as it does the obvious reverse case: that trampling on the subjective moral paradigm of the majority, could jolly well be right within the moral paradigm of reprobate minorities.

What this leaves us with is just starkly nonsensical conclusions.

Uyi Iredia: Examples please.

What do you mean?

I just pointed out to you how you misread that quote.

Uyi Iredia: "Universal law is the law of Nature. For there really is, as every one to some
extent divines, a natural justice and injustice that is binding on all men, even
on those who have no association or covenant with each other."

Before I begin to bash the stuff the folks then argued as natural law, please tell me why the boldfaced phrase doesn't nullify your posit of moral objectivity.

Because, you dodo, it says "everyone:, not some people, or many people: it states: everyone - that connotes universality.

Add to that the words I have highlighted in red, and its game over for you.

Please quick: go and retrieve your glasses from the lagoon, you need them urgently.

Which will mean all I've written prior was to no avail. Finally, you will rant on on some misunderstanding. and go drink your stout . . . . AGAIN !

You must be a seer or something. I am leaving my office and heading for it right now.

Mr. Troll, you have wobbled and fumbled and said exactly nothing whatsoever, nor made any cogent point, nor addressed any issue whatsoever.

Please just tell me if my words here below are true or false - - ->

Deep Sight: Deep Sight argued that a person who says that all morality is strictly subjective only, has no basis for condemning the actions of any other person whatsoever: as they should recognize that that person is governed and should be governed only by his own subjective morality.

This simple point should be enough to end the discussion one way or the other - if you will honestly address it head-on, and seek no escape in meaningless rigmarole.

Your answer? ? ?

Empredboy: cos catholic population is 3billion.

Please at least get your facts right, this here is untrue.

thehomer: I know this because he is supposed to care about humans. If he doesn't care about humans, then I see no reason why I should bother with him.

How does caring about humans equate with showing up physically?

thehomer: He would if he could.

And how do you know this. You cannot even say this for sure about extra-terrestrial intelligent beings (Aliens), if they exist.

Sal C: Opening your own ministry won't be as difficult as finding a name for it.

You dont get it. I was suggesting a name for his ministry. He should name it "I must open my own" Ministry. . .

I must open my own Ministry

wiegraf: One last thing though. It occurs to me it's rather weird you'd quote yourself like that, unless of course you thought the original post was still there. In other words, you intended to quote yourself in a new post to bring home the point. Instead you accidentally overwrote the ol....

gaddamit you've been drinking again...

Later, good ser...

Ohhhhh! I see now! That's actually exactly what happened!

And yes, I was trying to quote myself there - to re-emphasize the point about those things happening at close quarters - which is why I then wrote about my close-quarters experience of last year after quoting myself. . .

Thanks for spotting the error. . . you see? Don't always assume one to be deliberately "lying" or obscuring anything. . . .

I want to ope a new thread over this subjectivity issue and ask some straight questions. . . . when I find the energy.

wiegraf: This is far more annoying than anything else on this thread to me. You need not take my somewhat barbaric mannerisms seriously abeg

Less headache with stout, I've never bothered to find out why...

Lolzzzzzz...... later bruv

Uyi Iredia: Laws work fine. Subjective views of many in agreement also work fine as well. In fact, that's precisely the case and precisely why ypu think it objective. It is NOT.



Is this REALLY objective ? And why can't in my subjective view think it legitimate to enforce a subjective view. You best (a lawyer) should know that at times laws impose the subjective views of the legislature interests of a few on the majority. A case in point being California's Prop. 8 deemed unconstitutional by California's Supreme Court.



Yes. But if it is 'objective' I am not imposing any view on a person who thinks differently. Very consistent Mr DS !



Not quite. Moral subjectivity will note that more folks thought it good as at then, AND that there were still people who thought it wrong, more than people give credit BTW. This emotional appeal you like to throw pisses off because I am TOO SURE if you were born then you would possibly think it right. For examole, slavery was once a punitive measure for crimes and debt owed, now we have prisons, and I'm sure you think it right. Consider, a possible future where gay marriage is legalized everywhere and death and prison has been abolished for centuries, I can imagine another silly Deep Sight junior claiming that because moral subjectivity allows that because former views where right as at then, moral subjectivity is horrible. What nonsense !




So ! I will, for example, say r@pe, is wrong ONLY when it is made illegal, WTF !



1. If slavery was morally right at the time when practiced, there would have not been a moral agitation against it, much less one that led to a universal recognition of its abhorrence.

And moral subjectivity allows for that. To the people who think it right, it's right. To those, who think it wrong, it's wrong. This point like others after it is based on a straw man which thinks moral subjectivity makes the majority stance right. Moral subjectivity notes that morality varies by the person, nothing more or less. It doesn't claim the general outlook on a thing determines it's morality, not so, since moral subjectivists would themselves differ on it.



SMH.



Good point. But the point of mocking God is how He claims superior objective morality when humans now know better, than say, to stone a child to death for disobedience - an OT law.




As conscious being who arbiter moral values.



Sure. Though I fear you NEVER began to understand the importance of my initial post which specufically addressed this point.



Your subjectivity. This is Deep Sight's 'is' on the matter which he presents as an 'ought' for subjectivist to take as a contadiction. I say the objectibist shut up if a person can dissent to the objective position. It's almost as if Newton would have to argie for gravity in a world where some things which a thrown up don't come down, no flight, quantum locking etc involved.



Not all think that way.




Uhum, humor me . . . *takes a huge bite from an apple*



Lol ! How so ? Please read an earlier point . . .


Apparently he is holding it as an onus on
subjectivists that the majority has no right to tramp a minority if
they truly believe in subjectivity. And I say otherwise precisely
because I think so. I even note later on that the minority may even
win the majority. BTW if his moral absolutism was accurate, we
wouldn't even be arguing, because EVERYONE would be BOUND BY
NATURE to think the same way on moral absolutes. I can imagine
him ignoring this by saying I misunderstand natural law, or asking
questions on things widely held wrong and say therefore moral
absolutes.



True.



Your subjectivity. You are trying hard and FAILING at imposing it on subjectivists.



Why won't it ? In your view the point make sense. In mine, it don't.



I see. Well ignorance is the precondition to knowledge. Unfortunately for me, and other subjevtivists, you aren't ignorant, you are full of knowledge . . . .













































. . . . where it least matters.

This is very wrong and the contradictions here are many and amazing.

Let us drop the matter for now. I will try to articulate a new thread next week for you and wiegraf, with greater clarity.

Till then, drink a stout on me.

wiegraf: You addressed nothing with this nonsense, and feel free to run to where ever you go to cry. For one, are you saying its natural for the prey to want to be eaten?? What about its desire to live?! That's not natural? Who even gets to decide what's natural? Shall males now kill the kids of the children of single moms if they're interested in some action? You do know that's what a lot of nature indulges in, no?

Your 'natural' is not my natural. This is patently obvious, so what are you on about?

As for your 'poser', erm, problem where? I've already told you its all subjective. You then ask a senseless question. i've alteady stated this; my f%*$*% standards, society's, whatever the context is, simple. And note, there is absolutely no such thing as a universal context. Impossible even conceptually because of tje fact above; values differ. I could not have been any clearer through this thread. We all do this, just some label it something else. You're here trying to pass your nonsense off as objective , no? Well, it clearly isn't. It then becomes a battle of 'wills'.

So damned simple....

Well let me close this thread in as charitable a way as I can - by saying that perhaps we both mean well, but have some fundamental misunderstanding which is difficult to get past. I will try, as soon as I find the strength, to formulate a new thread and summarize the issues with greater clarity for a more intelligible discussion perhaps next week.

Ciao, my dear random amigo. . . and I hope you do not take my barbs and jibes to heart. . . na so I dey play with everybodi. . .

Yeah, now, on to serious matters. . . where is the next bottle. . . aha, right here, within arm's reach. . . . hic.

Uyi Iredia: Then state clearly what is being discussed. We might as well start over. Though I suspect you'll go for a bottle of stout rather than address the issue.

The bottle of stout is before me already! What else do you think I would be doing on a nice Saturday evening? ? ? ? ? LOL.

What is being discussed is embedded in Reyginus' question and also my revert to Plaetton re: subjectivity.

The real question is how anything at all can be known or stated, if we hold the strict subjectivist stance to be true.

See again -

https://www.nairaland.com/1255695/evil-confirms-absence-god/4#19613758

And cogitate on Reyginus' question.

wiegraf: And how does this affect the fact that is an appeal to emotion?

- - - >

Deep Sight: Direct experience often enables more realistic assessment of reality.

wiegraf: Google translate

Google escape. . . .

wiegraf: All the stuff i mention on my immediate reply, I didn't make it up. I notice the last paragraph of that post is what you now quote as the opener of the current version of the post.

I dont get what you mean here.

wiegraf: And how does this affect the fact that is an appeal to emotion?

Here's the truth, to many those involved in that episode, their actions are justified. There is no way their actions van be classified as intrinsically, or objectively evil

It might scare you or make you sad, but that's the fact.

If you want to hold onto this mythological good you're high on, again, the same high Messrs Hitler et all were on (see, it works both ways), if you want to even dream of holding on some semblance of a point, simply show how the right to live of a predator overrides that of its prey. Simple

I am going to drop this discussion with you pretty soon.

There are too many cardinal questions that have been raised for you to answer, which you have ignored: and as such you have little right to pose questions in lieu of answers.

I will give you a simple answer to the question of predator and prey: I say that it is natural order. The same way it is natural for a Lion to eat cattle, but unnatural for a Lion to make fellow Lions its standard feed. That is as simple, direct and non-escapist a response as you can get. Please return the favor, with reference to my many unanswered questions. And also Reyginus' question, which you lied about having addressed. You have not addressed it. Either address it, or show where you addressed it.

wiegraf: You now resort to telling outright lies

You're a disgrace

Seriously. Which post? And what did I change? Let me know, I am actually curious.

As I said, I did add to some posts to make them clearer, but cant recall changing the content of any post in a different direction. . . .

wiegraf: You now replace it with another of your standard issue appeals to emotion

Really...

Oh, the post about the armed robbery experience, I could have made that post much earlier, if truly I was looking to appeal to emotion.

Rather the post is directed at the fact that we can sit comfortably in an arm chair and detach ourselves from reality and make empty postulations.

Direct experience often enables more realistic assessment of reality.

Reyginus: Lolololol. Interprete my statement as it suits you. I'm not sorry for your butthurt. My intentions were good.
All I demand is the post that dealt with my question. I'm serious.

You will not get it from him, because he is yet to even understand your poser, much less claim to have responded to it!

texanomaly: I love to read your posts. Mostly because I often agree, but often because your way with words is pretty amazing, if not somewhat blowhardish. Made that one up just for you. Hehe. Uhem...sorry.

I have to say though, the bolded is the funniest thing I've ever seen you post. Coming from you that is hilarious. I live it.

Hahahahahaahahahahahaa, thanks ma'am. . . . .