Subjective Morality page 13

320 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:
Explanation:
In all these cases, SOME people chose to enforce these laws long ago, and those living today are automatically accepting them.
Also, there are (criminal) laws, that leaving the country of the action, WON’T help the criminal, cause it extends beyond that country’s borders.
And anyways, like I said, you can leave a country, but you can’t leave the world.
So by the very same logic (while in Rome, act like a Roman, hehehe) – while one is living in this world, one has to abide by the “constitution” of its Creator, the same way a citizen abides by the laws made by that countries founders.

Wrong. The people today do not automatically accept them. I know of not one society that has existed over 30 years that lives by the same laws it did when founded.
Even constitutions that were supposed to be eternal change and are adapted. If not the wording itself then then the definition/interpretation of the words change or the focus and weighting of different Parts of the law against each other is differently or in some cases the laws just get plain ignored.

So far i have not seen one rational and logical argument why the morals of a creator would/should or even could become binding for its creation and be consider objective for/to said creation.

 
Flag Post

I presume you mean special education and special health care, not general education and general health care.
As you know, I am living in a country with socialistic national health care for everyone, and I find the rewards more than outweigh the cons of being taxed specifically to upkeep the NHS. Yes, improvements are always needed in service quality and ability, but isn’t that what people like me are here for? The general spending is perfectly fine, and a good cause.

Presumption correct. We’re also running national health care here in Canada, and I find the idea that we as a nation commit our resources to ensuring universal access just fine. On the other hand, that the private sector is criminalized, and I can’t spend money to save my life within the nation I find a little.. irksome.

Special education is a minefield. Sometimes it’s for people with mental health problems who really need it. Sometimes it’s for people with physical and not mental health problems where it is just easier to bundle them off with the mentally challenged – that is very, very wrong. Sometimes it goes to support people who are unteachable and extremely disruptive – those who have been expelled from multiple schools for behavior. I do find umbridge in paying for prison-schools to try to teach this subset of the population. They’re simply not interested in learning and it is usually a waste of money.

I was thinking more as an extension of our special treatment of native americans. On virtue of their race they have access to a far greater array of school funding payed for from the common coffers. On another note I found the notion that remedial classes were all but mandatory, where as any advanced classes were limited to select classes few and far between. The whole intent of approach seems fixed upon the lowest common denominator.

A limited and incorrect view. You know where i’m going with this; I’m going to brring up the subset of that population that I see on a daily basis: The physically disabled. Many are in obvious need, but not through ‘a series of poor decisions’ but through factors entirely beyond their control.

I should have conditioned my view a little, pardon me. I meant within my immediate surroundings, and under the same rights and services I have. I certainly agree that few amongst the physically disabled of any stripe brought it upon their own head and should be held personally accountable – but I on the same token support our Health program, and it’s treatment of them. Although, to be fair I am not sure how far the government goes in funding solutions, perhaps something I should look into to.

In short, to tar all in need as ’it’s their fault, let them deal with it’, is simply monsterous. Either that or you really didn’t think all the permetations through before speaking.

Guilty as charged, hehe. Injury and defect I feel are good avenues for the universal concentration of resources to alleviate what is really tragically bad fortune.

 
Flag Post

Who made the bread you eat?
Was it those workers who grew it, reaped it, baked it?
Or was it rather the nature that ENABLED you eating that bread to begin with?
You seem to insist that bread was made entirely due to the human efforts alone.

Shitty analogy. Bread is not comparable to morality. Since you’re “resigning”, I’ll just leave it at that, but if you come back any way, try to reply with something better.

 
Flag Post

I’d rather really get some mental rest from this nonsense, thank you. :D

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

On the other hand, that the private sector is criminalized, and I can’t spend money to save my life within the nation I find a little.. irksome.

Ung, thank you for clarifying your statements.

Yea, the UK does have a different view to Canada with private health care. Private exists right alongside the NHS, and are regulated, but more than welcome to compete. If you wish to pay instead of using the NHS, you can. The caveat is, once you pay, the NHS will no-longer treat you for anything relating to that issue.

So if you have botox on your leg privately, the NHS will no-longer do any pain management on that leg, for example. However they will still treat you for lung disorder, say. It keeps the sysem relatively fair.

Of course, its great for us (meaning the company, and the medical industry as the ‘us’) because we can have our cake and eat it. The middle of the road devices go in numbers to the NHS, and there’s still a market for high-end specialist devices that cost more than a family car.

I was thinking more as an extension of our special treatment of native americans. On virtue of their race they have access to a far greater array of school funding payed for from the common coffers.

I was not aware this occured. What is the reasoning for it, please?

On another note I found the notion that remedial classes were all but mandatory, where as any advanced classes were limited to select classes few and far between. The whole intent of approach seems fixed upon the lowest common denominator.

Yeah. In the US, that was because of the misguided policy of “No Child Left Behind” as enacted by the Bush administration. It concentrated on the lowest common denominator, to get that up, under the assumption that the more intelligent kids could fend for themselves. The current administration has improved it a bit, but the focus is still wrong. We should be helping each individual to the best of their ability – brightest as well as poorest. But that takes real financial investment, and a focus on good and well-qualified teaching staff and education resources. It won’t happen anytime soon.

I have no idea what is driving it in Canada however.

 
Flag Post

I was not aware this occured. What is the reasoning for it, please?

At this point, I would have to suggest white guilt – I really can offer no other satisfactory explanation. The general feeling that they have been wronged and must be paid reparations as a general public conception. It is long overdue to stop providing additional funding, rights, and privileges to separate races. Trudeau, a Prime Minister of ours, proposed ending the formal divisions but it never took off. So on it goes. One of the few countries with formal race and purity laws. Ridiculous.

I have no idea what is driving it in Canada however.

I’d hazard a guess at pity. The general conception that one should labor over unfortunates as a virtue. I can’t really point to any specific documents or particular shifts of public consciousness. Merely that to the common mindset it is the natural occurrence, the natural thing to do.

 
Flag Post

 
Flag Post

If morality is subjective, why should the government be allowed to push its version of morality upon its citizens?

 
Flag Post

Different politicians push different morals, Jaume. There’s no one ‘government moral set’.

As to why, well someone has to lead, to make decisions on behalf of our society. Without that direction, that focus, we don’t get a cohesive society. Without leadership we have no set laws, and without laws, comes lawlessness.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

If morality is subjective, why should the government be allowed to push its version of morality upon its citizens?

The theory of social contract. Basically, if you are born in a country then you are expected to follow a certain moral code. Some (mainly anarchists) see this as tyranny, and in a sense they are right, but nevertheless laws that outlaw murder or theft are popular tyranny.

To conclude, there is no objective moral code that justifies the actions of the government, nor a system that can possibly protect all moral tendencies. In an anarchy it’s just idealism that people will live and let live, and not form up into gangs and erect their own states. The idea of the current state, however, is that it is malleable and the moral code is not objective; it can be changed. Whether this holds has yet to be seen.

 
Flag Post

Murder is the ultimate violation of another’s human life. In contrast, particular marriages being banned is the state forcing their own set of subjective morality. Stealing, raping, etc., are a violation of another’s life; but the government should not violate what an individual wants to do with their own life if it does not affect other or if others mutually accept it (e.g., marriage).

Murder, rape, etc., are not about morality at all. Those are violations of others’ lives.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

Murder, rape, etc., are not about morality at all. Those are violations of others’ lives.

That is down to a question of whether you find a violation of others’ lives to be moral or not. In general as a society we don’t find them moral, but there are exceptions to every moral rule. What we class as sociopaths in general, don’t find these things immoral.

Murdrer is also moral to people in some cases, immoral to them in others, depending entirely on the circumstances. Sexual assault I’m not even going to touch.

 
Flag Post

You’re both missing my point. The fact that murder, etc., are illegal is because they are violations of others’ lives. Whether these are moral or not is a different question. (No, I am not saying it is moral to murder…) The government on many issues dictates subjective morality when it does not gravely affect citizens’ lives.

MAIN QUESTION: why is the government allowed to dictate its version of morality on issues such as marriage? Especially since it is subjective morality.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

MAIN QUESTION: why is the government allowed to dictate its version of morality on issues such as marriage? Especially since it is subjective morality.

MAIN ANSWER: It is not. ‘The government’ does not exist. There is no such single entity. Instead we have a chaotic bundle of governing people each with completely different morals, each of them trying to instill their own personal morals on the populace.

Every law that is submitted, is a mixture of the personal morals of the person or persons who wrote it. That’s why we often end up with contradictory laws being submitted for review at the same time.

The government as a group, tries to govern the country in a way a majority of the group are fairly happy with, mostly through compromise and additional side-laws to molify those with opposing moral views inserted into in every bill. It dictates morality through law in as much as the government’s task is to oversee our civilisation, and legislate directions to follow.

The only reason we have the current laws on marriage is because one politician drafted a bill, and managed to compromise with other politicians enough to get majority vote and pass it. Then other politicians over time drafted additional bills to modify the existing one, and managed to compromise with other politicians enough to get each modification passed.

Modification after modification after modification. Over time, they add up to our current laws, with no single moral view dominating them. Additional laws to redefine marriage will work the self same way, adding yet more, very different moral views into the mish-mash of marriage law.

 
Flag Post

And the conclusion ends up being: therefore, the state should not be allowed to dictate on marriage and other such interpersonal contracts that do not gravely affect individuals.

The question was mainly aimed at conservatives, but I doubt I’ll get an answer from them.

The government as a group, tries to govern the country in a way a majority of the group are fairly happy with

Depends on the government. You here overlook tyranny.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

Depends on the government. You here overlook tyranny.

Nope, it works exactly the same with any style of government, tyranny included. The people in governance try to rule over the country in a way that a majority of those doing the ruling agree with.

And the conclusion ends up being: therefore, the state should not be allowed to dictate on marriage and other such interpersonal contracts that do not gravely affect individuals.

I honestly have no clue where you pulled that from.

The people in governance of the country have every right to make any laws they like, providing they can get enough support for those laws from other people governing the country, providing those new laws don’t conflict with older laws, set in stone – such as the us constitution. Even then the new laws are passed then overturned later.

They are ‘allowed’ to ‘dictate on marriage and other such interpersonal contracts’, because their job is to legislate every part of the society they head, setting down the binding rules for the populace to follow.

When the morality of those laws is in opposition to the morality of a sizable section of the populace, that is when problems occur.

 
Flag Post
Nope, it works exactly the same with any style of government, tyranny included. The people in governance try to rule over the country in a way that a majority of those doing the ruling agree with.

Right, I thought “the group” secondly referred to the populace. Quite ambiguous.

because their job is to legislate every part of the society they head, setting down the binding rules for the populace to follow.

I don’t believe they should have access and rights to the extent of totalitarianism—which is what many American politicians aim to achieve with their morality today. The government or the state should not be allowed to directly intervene in an individual’s choice, thoughts, etc.

The people in governance of the country have every right to make any laws they like

That in itself is immoral.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

I don’t believe they should have access and rights to the extent of totalitarianism—which is what many American politicians aim to achieve with their morality today. The government or the state should not be allowed to directly intervene in an individual’s choice, thoughts, etc.

When the ability to read a person’s thoughts from a distance is perfected, you can bet your bottom dollar someone in government will try to draft laws to monitor them. Everything is open for legislation. Fixed documents of limitations are the only guard we have against overreaching personal morality laws in governance and such are a poor guard at that, only able to question a law once it has passed.

It is precisely because government is full of people with wildly differemt, subjective morals that every and any aspect of our lives is up for grabs by government – different politicians believe different aspects of our lives should adhere to their own moral standards.

That in itself is immoral.

that’s the thing about subjective morality. Immorality depends solely on your own morals. It is relevant only to your own point of view.

It’s why we have boards of ethics for example – to try and set moral standards that can be agreed upon by all professionals in a given field. Otherwise you would see the same chaotic morality in every discipline. You still do to quite some extent.

 
Flag Post

Totalitarianism? lol.

There’s a BIG difference between the gov’t legislating on marriage not to your satisfaction, and totalitarianism. I see no sign that EITHER party is culpable of that.

 
Flag Post

If morality is subjective, why should the government be allowed to push its version of morality upon its citizens?

You have the choice of a society without rules or a society in which you are forced to follow the morals of the government. The former allows killing, stealing, and so on. The latter most of the times doesn’t. Most people would like to have such laws.