JustJim wrote:I can have a claim against people who "don't agree with" (whatever you meant by that) homosexuality because they're willing to deny other human beings their full human rights and dignity, and therefore present a potential danger to me and my family and friends because they might be willing to deny one or more of us our full human rights and dignity
Yeah I do not argue that you can't personally have a claim against someone else, but what I want to know is how their claim against you is any less legitimate? Who defines what full human rights are and under what circumstances they should and should not be granted? Why should someone who wants to protect the lives of infants be ignored for someone who wants to give people the option to control their lives even if it means ending the life of another? Just because people agree on a moral view does not make it right. People once agreed that woman shouldn't be allowed to vote. Nazis once agreed that their race was supreme above all the others. Simply having a view and finding others that agree with your view doesn't make your view right.
It's not a matter of which claim is legitimate or who is "right" or "wrong". Moral standards of behavior are determined by social/group consensus and agreement. What makes the Nazis "wrong" is that the world consensus said so. Ditto regarding women voting in this country (Saudi Arabia and other places share a different consensus on that...). If the group/society in which you live says it's wrong to deny women the right to vote, for example, then in your society
it IS wrong.... In Saudi Arabia, it's not yet considered "wrong" by enough people to change their laws and customs. So in Saudi Arabia, denying women the right to vote is NOT "wrong". If everyone agreed it was not wrong to kill people any time you felt like it, then it wouldn't be wrong to kill indiscriminately. But as you can see, our collective subjective morality eventually tends toward behaviors that are conducive to propagation of the species, reduced danger and threat to safety and comfort, general well-being and happiness, etc. Those ends shape our moral values without the necessity of any outside "Morality Giver"....
JustJim wrote:As long as we as a society agree on moral standards of behavior, based on our subjective moral values, then we don't need an outside objective morality to spell out our morality for us.
Yeah, as long as the Nazis were able to cleanse the world from the sub-human races there'd be no one left to have any other view. They could define whatever concept of what is right that they wanted.
I think you missed the part where the world rose up an denied them
that opportunity. The consensus of the rest of the world won out. It always will, even if it takes longer than you'd like it to take. And, if you'll take note of it, the Nazi's did what they did even though your God says it was wrong
. So how is having a morality giver like your God any better, or even different
, from no God at all? The argument from morality is very, very weak, Aaron....
JustJim wrote:If the only reason you don't beat up homosexuals, drink human blood, hate people who are of races other than yours, or have sex with young boys is because your God tells you it's morally wrong to do those things, then I'm scared of you. Personally, I don't need any God to tell me those things are wrong....
See right there. That's what I'm talking about. You're talking at me like I should know better. You're basically saying, "Don't you know that those things are wrong!? Good grief, you don't need to read about it in some religious print to find out that you shouldn't do those things". And I totally one hundred percent agree with you. Those things are wrong!
Well then why do you think you need a God to tell you those things are wrong if you already figured it out yourself?
Aaron wrote:But you're being dishonest in your approach to me. You can't in one instance say, "My morality is totally subjective" and then condemn my views by appealing to some moral sense that I should just have, like I should just know that those things are wrong.
That's NOT what I'm saying. You DON'T "just have" a sense of morality. You've learned
it and developed it and refined it - all within the context of your environment, experiences, and external influences. You weren't born
Aaron wrote:Morality cannot be both purely subjective and yet achieve its power through some appeal to objectivity. And that's exactly what I think you're doing. You're saying you make your own rules and then on the next turn your basically saying, "well don't you know that such and such is wrong!". What am I missing here Jim?
What you're missing is that I'm NOT saying everyone makes up their own rules of morality. Those rules are developed and evolve over millennia of socialization among families, groups, tribes, villages, towns, countries, etc. What works best to keep us going, keep us healthy and safe and happy - those things determine and become our moral standards. Those who disagree and refuse to abide by them pay the price of that. We lock them up or kill them. There is no objective morality. And, as we've all discussed here before, even if there WAS an objective morality, how could you know it, except via your subjectivity?
Don't be upset, Aaron. It's okay for us all to agree to be nice to each other and abide by commonly agreed upon moral values, even without any gods around to tell us how to act. We've got a way to go, but we've figured much of it out already. Keep on keeping' on.....