Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Ben Franklin: When he wasn't getting really drunk and having sex with prostitutes, he was the epitome of perfection.
While I can appreciate Olbermann's talks on his show, it's really interesting how a lot of his fans don't realise that Olbermann uses a lot of scare tactics to get his point across. I'm not really taking a political stance here: he does pander to the fears of the average American in order to support what would ordinarily be a pretty good argument as is. It's just backwards when he decries his "opponents" for doing the same things that he does.
Also, I can't understand the logic behind "I really like Jon Stewart/Bill Maher/Keith Olbermann because they openly oppose the president." Since when was partisanship considered a good quality?
Also, I can't understand the logic behind "I really like Jon Stewart/Bill Maher/Keith Olbermann because they openly oppose the president." Since when was partisanship considered a good quality?
I never said opposing the president was why I like them. To me, they are what we need more of: people who challenge an overbearing administration and aren't afraid of being called 'cut-and-runners' or 'commie far left smear merchants' (it's just too bad they aren't running for election). I'm all for bipartisanship, but when the other side's idea of being bipartisan is this, that's like negotiating with a cancerous tumor.
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Ouzo wrote:
Not liking the president and questioning his decisions and motives are completely different.
So 'directly challenge' and 'oppose' are not the same thing? I thought they were, but I could be wrong.
Maybe so, but when was the last time you heard a high-ranking Republican criticizing the president?
Whilst I can't name names, there have been some Republicans, even some GOP members, who have directly and openly disagreed with the choices and actions of the current cabinet. I don't know if they criticized them so much as disagree with them, but which one of those choices is more productive? It's one thing to denounce someone for the choices they've made, be they wholly incorrect or just opposing to your views: it is another thing to disagree and constructively give alternate options.
It's one thing to denounce someone for the choices they've made, be they wholly incorrect or just opposing to your views: it is another thing to disagree and constructively give alternate options.
Like:
Not doing away with Habeas Corpus?
Not performing warrantless searches?
Not holding detainees indefinitely?
Etc...
On principle, I definitely agree with you, but this bill is too extreme and the fact it actually passed is a travesty.
We can debate moral and ethics when applied to a society, for the very reason that the society is democratic and open to debate. In a ("real", as opposed to electorate) democratic society, the opinion shared by the most, prevails.
Even if the morals or standards don't exist in the world a priori, as you seem to imply is the problem, in a world in which there either:
a) Are no a priori "facts"
b) The "facts" that exist a priori are not known (E.g. if you try to argue based on the concept of the Christian God, I would ask you why he/she is more "correct" than the Muslim God)
or finally:
c) The a priori "facts" carry no moral/ethic virtues (Science, at the very least, seems to present such a world),
We are then faced with an emptiness, in which we can pour our imagination and construct our own moral/ethic complexes, testing them out for both contradictions and pragmatic reliability, then judging them based on a system of thinking which might be pre-given to the debaters (In this case, I'm assuming we are all debating which rules to use in a democratic society.), and finding those moral/ethic complexes which seem best suited to these systems.
The latter is what this debate is about.
*Retort*
"We observe the behaviour of simple folk, and derive pleasure from their defects."
-Aristotle - Book of Humour
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
MahaTmA wrote:
We can debate moral and ethics when applied to a society, for the very reason that the society is democratic and open to debate. In a ("real", as opposed to electorate) democratic society, the opinion shared by the most, prevails.
The U.S. certainly isn't this type of government. It is a constitutional republic despite everyone calling it so (including media, schools, and the president himslef). The difference is big. Majority doesn't rule, the consitution does. In fact, the "founding fathers" were quite opposed to democracy and did their best to protect this form of government from such things.
I don't know about european governments very well, but all the ones I know of are also constitutional republics.
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
MahaTmA wrote:
We can debate moral and ethics when applied to a society
This is the problem, though. What society are we applying ourselves to? Surely there is more than one society in a country, state, or internet, correct? In almost any circumstance, any proposed statement based on one society can be refuted with another.
Furthermore, even though a society holds its own beliefs does not mean that everyone falls in the median. It is a common mistake amongst many people to think that because the majority of Americans are registered as Christian/Catholic, it must mean that you can assume that the society of America holds some sort of religious standard. This fails to address that simply because there is a majority, there is not necessarily a weak minority.
In this sense, whenever anyone claims that the actions of any group, be it political or social, are to be considered benevolent or atrocious, you should take it with a grain of salt. Not everyone thinks that such and such is a good/bad thing, and this difference of opinions is what creates the median of a society. However, when people attempt to sway opinion with morals and ethics, which are in themselves just opinion (or situational facts, therein), the idea of logical persuasion is lost.
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Because there is no guarantee that everyone will ever agree on one thing, no matter how simple, so long as it isn't fact. Even with fact, some people still waiver due to opinions that blind them.
Name one moral that we all, as humans, share. Keep in mind that there are sociopaths, zealots, sadists, anarchists, and internet folk to take in to consideration.
Of course there are sociopaths, asf., but the only thing you need is for most people to agree on what is and isn't a crime, and the vast majority of people are agreed that acts such as murder, assault, kidnapping, theft, and arson are crimes, and i would add that this is because they constitute a physical invasion of another person's person or property. Also, because justice is rooted in egalitarianism, it can't discriminate among persons, so kidnapping is just as much a crime when commited by private individuals as when commited by government officials, therefore we can say that the military commisions act (aside from being unconstitutional) is illegal, because it authorizes such kidnapping.
By the way, what do you have against anarchists? I'm an anarchist.
Of course there are sociopaths, asf., but the only thing you need is for most people to agree on what is and isn't a crime, and the vast majority of people are agreed that acts such as murder, assault, kidnapping, theft, and arson are crimes, and i would add that this is because they constitute a physical invasion of another person's person or property.
This still doesn't mean that these are values that exist a priori, merely that it is the most common current train of thought, coaxed by the current historical period we live in.
Also, you assume that the a priori facts are to be found in the thoughts of humans, taking an anthropocentric stance on the issue of finding these basics, thus you are only assuming, and therefore you haven't found the basic principles, only your own assumptions.
Also, because justice is rooted in egalitarianism, it can't discriminate among persons, so kidnapping is just as much a crime when commited by private individuals as when commited by government officials, therefore we can say that the military commisions act (aside from being unconstitutional) is illegal, because it authorizes such kidnapping.
Not necessarily, since some forms of government or trains of thought do not consider it a crime for a "superior" to commit these actions, for example the hypothetical communist society, or the monarchies of old.
Only if we consider the bil las belonging to a democratic, liberal mindset does it not fit in, which it doesn't, I agree.
By the way, what do you have against anarchists? I'm an anarchist.
Point proven I should think ;)
"We observe the behaviour of simple folk, and derive pleasure from their defects."
-Aristotle - Book of Humour
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Bob A wrote:
but the only thing you need is for most people to agree
Umm, I thought we were talking about "natural laws of morality and justice we can all appeal to." How can it be universally applicable if you only need a majority decision?
Bob A wrote:
By the way, what do you have against anarchists? I'm an anarchist.
When did I say I had issues with the people on that list? Also, useless bold wording!
To clarify what meant: not that common values determine what justice is, but that they reflect something in human nature. Just because some people have it wrong, or that no one has completely right, doesn't mean there aren't principles we can study. Also, i would say that justice is egalitarian by definition, is it not?
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
While we can study moral and ethics, we can not assume that there is a standard by which everyone agrees/disagrees. Therefore, by accepting that each person is intrinsically unique in comparison to anyone, it seems very odd that people still think that morality and ethics make for a good basis of argument. Morals are based on personal opinion, and so you can't expect that the application of your morals on others will ever be OK.
I would say that justice is as relative as morals are. Not everyone has the same sense of justice. To say that some people 'get it wrong' is a bit myopic, but I would agree with your clarification that 'no one has it completely right'. However, I would venture to say that no one has it 'right' or 'wrong,' because there is no scale of 'correctness' when it comes to personal beliefs.
I agree with the first part of what you said, but the second part (starting with "it seems very odd") i don't get. To say that justice is relative strikes me as a bit like saying that geometry or chemistry is relative. Obviously, there's such a thing as human nature, which every human has, and by studying it, we can find out what works for societies and what doesn't, and how this relates to the idea of justice. If there were no standard of justice at all, arbitration would be impossible, and everyone would settle every dispute by violence.
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
What I find odd: everyone has their own beliefs. No two people naturally have the same beliefs. Having this in mind, it is illogical to use your standards of principle in an argument without first mentioning that it is just your opinion and not fact.
Think of it this way: why would Person A feel justified in telling Person B that they are wrong in terms of non-factual evidence?
A better, more purinent example: Joe thinks that anything not natural is vile and a testament to all that is wrong with mankind. Jane has a cancer that can be treated with certain drugs. Would you say that Joe would be in the right for hating Jane because she accepts what he believes is wrong in order to save her life? Why is it that Joe has any justification to impose his morals on to a person who does not share the same belief?
The standard of justice is determined by the standards that a society agrees upon:
-Steal from someone in the US, reimbursement + community service.
-Steal from someone in old Middle East, lose a hand.
-Steal from someone in Utopia, become a slave.
There is no universal sense of justice. To say that there is one baseline of justice that every human being naturally follows is wrong. No one wants their property stolen? What about social communists? No one wants to feel pain? What about masochists? Etc. etc., you can't logically hold anyone to your standards or a society's standards unless that person accepts those standards as their own. This is key in the idea of citizenship: to live in a society, you must adhere to its rules.
Anything else I need to ramble on about?
What I find odd: everyone has their own beliefs. No two people naturally have the same beliefs. Having this in mind, it is illogical to use your standards of principle in an argument without first mentioning that it is just your opinion and not fact.
Think of it this way: why would Person A feel justified in telling Person B that they are wrong in terms of non-factual evidence?
I don't see why that couldn't apply to any statement of fact.
A better, more purinent example: Joe thinks that anything not natural is vile and a testament to all that is wrong with mankind. Jane has a cancer that can be treated with certain drugs. Would you say that Joe would be in the right for hating Jane because she accepts what he believes is wrong in order to save her life? Why is it that Joe has any justification to impose his morals on to a person who does not share the same belief?
I would say that Joe is wrong, but i don't see how you could, beyond your subjective preference.
The standard of justice is determined by the standards that a society agrees upon:
-Steal from someone in the US, reimbursement + community service.
-Steal from someone in old Middle East, lose a hand.
-Steal from someone in Utopia, become a slave.
That's one definition of 'justice', but it does't seem like a very good one, since we say things like "slavery was unjust" and not "slavery would be unjust today" or "slavery seems unjust to us". Anyway, it's not the one i'm using.
There is no universal sense of justice. To say that there is one baseline of justice that every human being naturally follows is wrong. No one wants their property stolen? What about social communists? No one wants to feel pain? What about masochists? Etc. etc., you can't logically hold anyone to your standards or a society's standards unless that person accepts those standards as their own. This is key in the idea of citizenship: to live in a society, you must adhere to its rules.
It seems like you're just restating your position without giving any supporting arguments. I think i offered a fairly simple noncontructive proof that morality isn't purely subjective. (as for the communist thing, it's not technically theft if they don't mind.)
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Bob A wrote:
I don't see why that couldn't apply to any statement of fact.
You don't understand why opinions shouldn't be expressed as facts?
Bob A wrote:
I would say that Joe is wrong, but i don't see how you could, beyond your subjective preference.
Exactly. I can't say that he is wrong, because no one is right or wrong. It is a matter of personal preference. Knowing this, it is really illogical to portray your preference as 'right' compared to another person's 'wrong'.
Bob A wrote:
That's one definition of 'justice', and it does't seem like a very good one
Would you like to give a better definition of justice? One that agrees/disagrees with my statement that justice is relative since it is based on an average of personal morals across a society? You stated that justice is on the same level as science, but I highly disagree with that, since science is essentially universally applicable, whereas justice is entirely situational. Justice to one person is not justice to another, therefore it is relative.
It seems like you're just restating your position without giving any supporting arguments. I think i offered a fairly simple noncontructive proof that morality isn't purely subjective.
I don't think you gave any sort of proof other than your personal opinion, which is what I'm currently stating can't be expressed in a very logical way.
You said "there are natural laws of morality that we can all appeal to," but you never explained how or why that is. While I was saying that each individual person has their own set of morals that can't be brought to a common denominator across the species, you said that you only need "most people to agree on" what those morals are, which doesn't refute my statement. As MahaTma stated, you are confusing these opinions with 'facts' when they are just a common and popular thought.
You also said that simply because we have some sort of justice at all, there is therein proof of a commonality in human nature. I disagreed, saying that justice differs from society to society, and even person to person. If you commit an offense against someone, there is no guarantee what the outcome will be (if there even is one), since each person uniquely responds to each situation, be they driven by societal norms or their own natural reactions.
Sorry if I'm still not answering anything or repeating myself to much, but I don't really see what you're getting at here. I'm trying to argue that since opinions/morals/ethics are personal and not factual, you can't use them as effective debate devices. Yet here you are asking me to support this statement with what I can only see as personal opinion and morality. I've tried to stay as far from using personal belief as I can, but I concede that it is impossible to have a debate on the ethics of using ethics in a debate without using ethics in the debate!
No one wants their property stolen? What about social communists?
Well, to be exact, social communists believe that everything belongs to the state, hence the property isn't quite theirs to begin with. As such, they may not be too bothered if something in their possession is stolen, because after all, it is not theirs per se.
Zurreco wrote:
The standard of justice is determined by the standards that a society agrees upon:
-Steal from someone in the US, reimbursement + community service.
-Steal from someone in old Middle East, lose a hand.
-Steal from someone in Utopia, become a slave.
This is true, and this is where relativity in Justice lies. The setence meted out is based on the severity society places on various crimes. Hence, though as mentioned that countries generally regard theft as a crime, the punishment is often quite different.
The whole debate basically boils down to value judgement of the individual. Although it may be shaped by the environment they live in, by and large, the fact that morals belong to an individual makes them unique from person to person. Even something that apppears to be universally acceptable may not hold through for everyone, due to the existence of mavericks and others. For some who come to hate the society they are born into, they would go against the set of morals held by that society. And this cannot be changed: you just cannot deny an individual from forming his own views, even if they are wrong.
