…Church Was On the Wrong Side, As Usual
http://www.theguardian.com/global/live/2015/may/23/counting-underway-for-irelands-referendum-on-marriage-equality
Ireland becomes first country to legalise same-sex marriage by popular vote
Irish voters have decisively voted in favour of marriage equality, making Ireland the first country to do so through the ballot box. Only one of the 43 constituencies voted against the proposal – Roscommon-South Leitrim – while the yes vote exceeded 70% in many parts of Dublin. The no campaigners have paid tribute to their opponents, and the archbishop of Dublin has said the result should be a wake-up call for the Catholic church in Ireland.
[title shortened by Lizzie]
Thank god the Catholic church is – finally! – losing its power to ruin peoples’ lives with its political machinations. Rejoice, the Irish people are entering a new era where all men and women have an equal right to marry the person whom they love.
.
.
.
.
I don;t think it’s clear that the OP is all quoted from the Guardian; none of the OP is my own except the title.
That’s really good news. I loved this photo from the BBC site:
Any decision they came up with would have been “the right thing” under logically consistent materialism because there is no objective standard – there is only whatever any group happens to call “right” at any particular time or location. Had they voted to execute all gays and lesbians it still would have been “the right thing”.
WJM
You write these comments as though none of the endless debates on metaethics had ever taken place. Just because ethics is not objective it does not follow that it is “whatever any group happens to call “right” at any particular time or location”. It is a false dichotomy and surely by now you recognise that?
I agree this is very good news. Interesting coverage on radio 4 comparing Eire to Northern Ireland. The assembly has rejected gay marriage four times. One of the reasons the Northerners used to not want to be part of the South was because of the reactionary religious attitudes of the Catholic South.
Do you ever tire of knocking down that straw man?
I have no idea why you would say something like this. From my perspective, this is a continuation of the same argument and it – once again – illustrates one of the fatal flaws of materialism and how materialists cannot even act as if (in a logically consistent way) materialism is true.
Where have I given any indication of “recognising” such an absurd notion?
If ethics is subjective, then yes indeed what any culture or group or society says is moral or ethical, is moral or ethical for them, by definition of what “subjective” means. IF the Irish had voted for executing all gays and lesbians, then it would have been ethical and morally right for them, and thus that would also be an example of doing “the right thing”.
Perhaps a more logically consistent headline for a materialist would be “Irish Voters Do
the Right ThingWhat I Personally Preferred. Church WasOn the Wrong Side,In Disagreement With My Personal Preferences As Usual.”No, it would not.
William, there’s a difference between relativism and subjectivism. Right and left, above and below, are relative terms. That doesn’t make them subjective. Physicists, beginning, I think, in the 17th Century began to understand that spatial terms were relative. Einstein, of course, showed that additional terms (like simultaneity) thought to be non-relative, also were not.
What you’re not seeing is that this doesn’t mean that the terms are “subjective” in the sense that “thinking makes them so.” Non-platonists about values may be Hobbesian/voluntarists without being subjectivists.
PS: Don’t feel too bad about missing this distinction, William–it’s not terribly subtle, but many (perhaps all?) of your disputants here don’t get it either. I really don’t like to post here, but I get so tired of seeing the same mistakes made over and over again.
walto,
Hi Walto,
At least you have seen the real Lizzie. No more waiting for Godot.
William: the idea that you have an “objective standard” that that you tout as better than the kind of consensus-derived standard that the many of us regard as the most objective possible, is useless because there is no objective way of figuring out what it was.
I’d rather have a consensus-derived standard arrived at through reasoned argument and debate than some notional “objective” standard that nobody can agree on.
It’s all very well theists saying that their standards are “objective” whereas non-theists’ are not, but without any way of objectively discerning what that “objective” theistic standard is, you are no better off.
If not, how?
All ethical debates are subjective, William, including theistic ones. The only difference is that theistic ones revolve around the questions “how do we figure out which god is the true god, and what does he or she want?” whereas non-theistic ones revolve round questions such as “who is harmed by this?”
I suggest the latter are actually less subjective than the former.
That was my question to WJM.
I guess he has implicitly answered that, with a new UD thread where he again knocks down that straw man.
William, I would like to hear your opinion on whether or not this decision was objectively “right”.
Before your answer, keep in mind that the penalty for homosexuality in countries that were (are) theocratic or strongly influenced by religion, was death, castration or jail. If that is the consequence of objective morality, I much prefer subjective morality.
At UD William writes:
But fails to tell us how we figure out, objectively, what it deems to be right.
Thanks, Alan. It’s indeed nice to see her here–as it must be for you to have her back. She has a salutary effect on the content here, I think– just as y’all said she did.
And as she’s a Beckett fan herself, she can no doubt understand my preference of sucking stones (turn and turn about) to pretty much everything else.
EL said:
So?
Well, William, it’s what I’ve been asking you all along, for the last few years;
If “Theism is the only source of an absolute, objective morality” how do we figure out what that objective morality is? Objectively?
And, if we can’t, what’s the use of it existing?
You don’t know what the word objective means.
So what use is it to declare that an objective standard exists if you can’t objectively determine what that standard is? Then it might as well not exist for fucks sake.
Well, I think he does, he just doesn’t use it in the way the rest of us do.
I think what he means is that if we assume that there is an “objective” morality “out there” i.e. one that would be there even if there were no humans in existence to try to discern it, then it makes sense to try and discern it. But if we don’t make that assumption, then it makes no sense to try to discern it.
Even though the assumption makes no difference at all to our attempts to try to arrive at any set of moral principles.
Whereas I would say: there are as many ways of trying to discern a theistically ordained “objective” morality as there are at least of religions, and probably of people. In other words, the discernment process is entirely subjective, and, moreover, uses irrelevant data (scriptures for instance).
Whereas the non-theistic version has the benefit of being the result of a consensus view on the goal of a moral system (minimise harm, for instance), supported by actual evidence of what actions are best suited to achieving it.
William, I think would respond: “but why bother to seek set of moral principles at all, if you don’t think any absolute set exists?” To which I would respond: “because moral principles, in practice, are the rules that enable us to govern ourselves and society in a manner that produces a positive sum game, i.e on average, tends to make everyone better off in the medium to long term”.
-0
~
~
~
~
~
+++++++++++++++++++~
Arcatia asks:
I don’t know enough about what the law actually entails to give a moral opinion on it specifically. If the law means that a same-sex couple may enter into a legally binding contract that will be recognized by the government as legally equal to a hetero relationship, then yes I consider it the “right” decision. If it means that the same-sex couple can have a marriage ceremony if they can find clergy willing to perform the ceremony, then yes. If it means they can buy a marriage license or civil-union equivalent from some government office, then yes. If the law means that clergy will be legally forced to perform marriage ceremonies even against their own religious beliefs and conscience, then no.
Generally speaking, the more liberty one has to do what they want and act according to their conscience as long as they don’t directly harm anyone else, the more “right” the law is – even if it allows people to do self-destructive and/or immoral things (and no, I’m not saying that same-sex marriage is self destructive or immoral).
That was posted by my cat. Thought it was worth mentioning.
Why would knowing that be important, William? How would that tell you what “objective morality” mandated in this context?
Hiya, walto, long time no see. Glad you’re back for however long that lasts.
Just as much as your notion that we should decide who is harmed is incapable of deciding what is right objectively.
Your idea that we should have a debate and decide what is best perfectly emphasizing exactly what William has been saying. From a materialist viewpoint, ANY decision they reached was the right one, because they debated and decided.
So if they decided to mutilate the genitals of all gay people, that also would have been the right decision, if it was agreed upon by their society.
walto,
Walto,
Interesting speech about the difference between relativism and subjectivism. I guess for a class about relativism vs. subjectivism it might even have some usefulness (maybe).
But what happened to the part where you were going to explain to William about how one decision about a law for morality is any more valid or right than another?
You all make a lot of proclamations here. But no one seems capable of articulating how a morality is deemed right other than society decides so.
Hee hee. I chose my thread title with prediction to myself that it would stir WJM into a froth. Success!
Well, you’ll have to take my word that I did predict it since I can’t give you proof (eg I didn’t email it to anyone in advance) but since it wasn’t really a difficult prediction, knowing William as we do …
Elizabeth,
You are great at abdicating the responsibility to explain to the theist, whilst you allow the atheist to just say-well, we do what is right, because that’s what is best.
What a charade.
Wouldn’t you agree that I have to know what the law actually says in order to have a reasonably informed opinion on if what it says is contrary to how I understand objective morality? OH WAIT … that’s right … you don’t have to understand a thing before you disagree with it.
Well, I’m not like you. I like to understand a thing before I agree or disagree with it.
Are you sure you intend the phrase “abdicating responsibility” here? I can make no sense of what you write.
What “charade”?
According to Lizzies declaration, it is entirely moral and just that woman in Saudi Arabia can’t drive, swim, vote, or go out or go out in public without a male chaperone.
I am sure they debated these rules first and came to a consensus, so she must be very happy.
Who is they? Did Saudi women contribute to the consensus? And on a similar note, why did Irish men get to vote in abortion censuses?
Really??????
Evidence for that would be?
Men can fly. Agree/Disagree?
Alan Fox,
The people who the society decided get to make the rules, decided the rules.
So what’s the problem?
Thanks, Hotshoe. I don’t expect to hang out long, but I lurk and (as always) I enjoy your posts which are both thoughtful and always expressed with passion. [EDIT: I actually used some passages of yours about the possible effects of hate speech in my ethics class last Fall. Really moving stuff. It’s funny how so many of those who say they believe the pen is mightier than the sword believe that only swords should be regulated.]
phoodoo, you wrote
I don’t remember promising to make any such explanation. The issues involved are, IMO, too complicated to be clearly set forth in this kind of context–even if I were competent to do it. First of all, “good” may be taken in a way that has moral implications or it may just refer to well-being, which, in my view, can be understood in a way that has no moral entailments. Then (the ought-stripped) good can be understood on an individual or on a societal level, and, IMO, different functions are required to evaluate goodness on those two levels.
Anyhow, what do you care? You’ve already decided all this stuff to your own satisfaction long ago, haven’t you?
I think you’re forgetting keiths’ farting up of the subject, which he does on a personal rather than societal level. But yeah, the proclamations definitely abound–though not nearly to the extent as they do on your favored site. There’s real nonsense there.
Are you proclaiming that?
Yep.
walto,
Well, you aren’t alone, that’s also how Lizzie says some morality laws are right-by proclaiming so.
I am happy to hear you admit however, that you have no intention, nor ability to demonstrate why one law is any more moral than another.
Give William the victory there.
Elisabeth you asked
Yes, Theism is the only source of absolute morality, the belief that you are a random cosmic accident that nothingness spewed without free will or purpose can’t create objective moral values because it is the definition of nihilism.
Objective moral duties are grounded in the Nature of God. God is transcendent and capable only for Good because He is Eternal, He created us out of unconditional love, unconditional love doesn’t aim somewhere that’s why God can be only Good, evil actions target somewhere and for that reason for an eternal God to do evil is purposeless, evil is purposeless on infinity. Moral teachings must be transcendent, the universal teaching “Don’t do unto others, what you wouldn’t want done unto you.” will apply even if we go to the moon or back in time because it is a transcendent teaching, spaceless and timeless, we recognize moral truths from their transcendence. Our transcendent conscience precedes the material world and it is the moral guide for our actions, even if you are an atheist you think with transcendence. Atheists base their objective morality on material things that’s why atheistic morality doesn’t exist because these things are finite and doesn’t carry objectivity, empathy, happiness, reason, social relationships, can’t create objective morality since they are tools, a knife is a tool, it doesn’t carry the property of being evil.
Same sex marriages should be forbidden, Irish people voted after 10 years of Media brainwashing where the Neo Marxists of the New World Order changed purposely the word equality with homogeneity, gay men still have sperm that fertilizes eggs and lesbians still have eggs that fertilized by sperm, it is a choice, a wrong choice and the State must not legalize wrong choices because at the end every choice will become acceptable, even pederasty if it is conditional.
Men, you mean? I don’t think women in Saudi Arabia were asked about men being in charge.
I’m going to assume this is an attempt to be humorous. It fails.
Not here, anyhow.
As for William winning, I prefer to give the victory to YOU, phoodoo. Really impressive stuff with the proclaiming biz and everything. I think that makes the ongoing tally phoodoo–187, SZ–9 (William–5). So, congrats!
ETA: BTW, for those counting, 6 of the 9 SZ victories were keiths products, so I want to congratulate him too, as I think we all should. But you’re still the king by far.
Alan Fox,
Gee Allan, it sounds like you are arguing for the majority to rule. Like as if everyone should be treated equally, for some unknown reason.
Alan Fox,
I don’t ever remember getting to vote if polygamy should be legal in my area?
Do you?
EL said:
So far so good.
This is where your logic fails you. The assumption would make all the difference in the world if, absent the assumption, one proceeded in a manner logically consistent with materialism/atheism, but that is not what self-described moral atheists/materialists do. They proceed in a manner consistent with moral objectivism, argue as if morality was objective and absolute, and act the same way. They write headlines about moral laws in accordance with objective, absolute morality. They do exactly what you do later on in this post – they (subconsciously) sneak in objective morality.
Once again, your logic (and your investigatory effort) fails you. If one is going to discern an assumedly objectively-existent morality, there are further necessary assumptions one must commit to, or else there would be no hope of a meaningful means by which to discern it. These further necessary assumptions pare the theistic field down considerably and conclude in a very narrow band of theistic views that can properly ground a meaningful, significant objective morality.
“Consensus view” is no different in principle than command-authority theism; “because we say so” is not categorically different from “because I say so”. There is no benefit here – groups are just as capable of bad moral views as individuals.
Again, your logic horribly fails. Under materialism “moral principles, in practice” are not ” the rules that enable us to govern ourselves and society in a manner that produces a positive sum game, i.e on average, tends to make everyone better off in the medium to long term” …because here you have snuck in an objective morality by definitional fiat. Under materialism, morality is whatever set of rules the individual, group, community, society or culture says they are, whether they agree with your particular subjective game-theory maxim or not.
Atheism/materialism means that had the Irish voted to lobotomize all gays and lesbians, it would necessarily be the right moral decisions and a good thing to do for them, because the consensus/those in power agreed to it and rationalized it however they rationalized it. If you cannot accept that, you cannot be a logically consistent atheist/materialist.
Nitpick but I’m Alan
Would you like to discuss ethics, how one might decide on a system then how best to implement them?
With respect, William, I suggest you consider, at least, the possibility, that your own logic may conceal a flaw.
In fact, you proceed to make no critique of my logic at all.
What I am saying, firstly, is that the assumption that there is an “objective morality” makes no practical difference how we approach arriving at a system of moral principles, which you appear to concede.
Secondly, I am saying that, given that the assumption of an “objective morality” makes no practical difference there is justification for calling it “objective” or even “morality” at all.
At best, your “objective morality assumption” is the stone in a saucepan of Stone Soup.
Leaving the Stone out does not render the soup inedible. Nor does leaving out the assumption that there exists some “objective morality” to which we do not have any access make any difference to our attempts to arrive at a set of moral principles.
On the other hand, the assumption that there could exist, were we to think about it hard enough, a set of moral principles that if generally adhered to, would tend to minimise suffering and maximise well-being, actually does help us arrive at such a set of moral principles.
And it’s a far more reasonable assumption that the assumption that somewhere in the universe, or beyond it, there exists a Golden Book wherein True Objective Morality is Written, but which we have no hope of every finding, or of knowing that it’s what we’ve found it were we to stumble across it.
.
It is fundamentally different. One is a bottom-up process, subject to continued revision in the light of new insights; the other is a top-down process that brooks no argument.
Chalk and cheese.