[Winstonm]

Quote

i asked about the act itself

I would say that acts in and of themselves cannot be either moral or immoral. Moral and immoral to me signify choices made, and thus are judgements not about the act but the person who commited the act.

A child in a remote African village contracts a new disease that is extremely contagious, has no cure, and is 100% fatal. The tribal coucil makes the decision to kill the child and burn her body so the village may survive.

In this same village earlier, a child was raped and killed by an unknown assailant.

The deaths of the two children are not the same, IMO. The motive for the decision alters the morality of the act.

To take this another step, suppose this was a non-Christian village. Would the etermal punishment for these two sins be the same? If morality is objective, motive does not matter. It is binary, right/wrong. But what about another concept - justice?

I would with a high degree of certainty believe that anyone reading the above two scenarios would sense an injustice if both killers were punished equally in the hereafter - how can there be a discrepancy between our sense of justice and the punishment for objective morality when both stem from a common source and morality is objective?

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Feb 10 2009, 11:52 AM, said:

Quote

i asked about the act itself

I would say that acts in and of themselves cannot be either moral or immoral. Moral and immoral to me signify choices made, and thus are judgements not about the act but the person who commited the act.

ok, that's fine... in your view nothing is immoral, everything is just a matter of opinion (and those in charge at any one time have the opinions that matter the most)... i already knew where richard stood on this, he's pretty much always felt that morality is subjective (relative to whatever the consensus is of the day, society, etc)... the only problem i have with this view is when people who feel this way argue that this or that is 'wrong' (for example, the torture in gitmo)

[Winstonm]

Quote

the only problem i have with this view is when people who feel this way argue that this or that is 'wrong' (for example, the torture in gitmo)

This is interesting. It sounds like you are saying that if I argue that torture in Guantanemo is wrong you would disregard that argument because my worldview about objective morality does not match your world view. Wouldn't it be more important to see if in my worldview the definiton of wrong is the same as yours?

Wrong could mean wrong tactically, wrong because it doesn't work, wrong that it is against civilized norm, wrong because it creates more terrorists....in other words not an argument that it is moral or immoral.

Perhaps that is the basis for the concept of morality - the sum of all wrongs.

Quote

in your view nothing is immoral, everything is just a matter of opinion (and those in charge at any one time have the opinions that matter the most)...

I originally was going to leave this quote alone, but on futher review I sense some emotional overtones in the phrasing that I feel need addressed.

"in your view nothing is immoral"
In my view, moral and immoral don't really exist - they are just words - not laws of any god or the laws of the universe. In other words, I think the words themselves were created by man to describe complex events in a simpler binary fashion. History makes it clear that those acts some term moral and immoral have changed over time and among various cultures. My own history shows me that I have a natural tendency to reduce the complex to a simpler structure to facillitate my understanding. Subjective "morality" also solves the issues of my other post about morality/justice. In other words, to me it makes more sense.

"everything is just a matter of opinion"
Not everything is a matter of opinion. Facts - observable, measurable, and verifiable - are not a matter of opinion.

"those in charge at any one time have the opinions that matter the most"
Those in charge control laws and punishments - but not the concepts of morality or immorality. Those concepts fall under the umbrella of mores and thus cannot be altered by force alone.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Feb 10 2009, 01:17 PM, said:

Quote

the only problem i have with this view is when people who feel this way argue that this or that is 'wrong' (for example, the torture in gitmo)

This is interesting. It sounds like you are saying that if I argue that torture in Guantanemo is wrong you would disregard that argument because my worldview about objective morality does not match your world view.

not at all, but i think it would be okay for me to ask by what standard you assume something to be 'wrong', don't you?

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Feb 10 2009, 01:39 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 10 2009, 01:17 PM, said:

Quote

the only problem i have with this view is when people who feel this way argue that this or that is 'wrong' (for example, the torture in gitmo)

This is interesting. It sounds like you are saying that if I argue that torture in Guantanemo is wrong you would disregard that argument because my worldview about objective morality does not match your world view.

not at all, but i think it would be okay for me to ask by what standard you assume something to be 'wrong', don't you?

Absolutely. At the same time I would think if someone used the word "wrong" you should assume he meant "wrong" and not immoral - and the question to ask if you want clarification is "Do you mean immoral?".

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Feb 10 2009, 01:39 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 10 2009, 01:17 PM, said:

Quote

the only problem i have with this view is when people who feel this way argue that this or that is 'wrong' (for example, the torture in gitmo)

This is interesting. It sounds like you are saying that if I argue that torture in Guantanemo is wrong you would disregard that argument because my worldview about objective morality does not match your world view.

not at all, but i think it would be okay for me to ask by what standard you assume something to be 'wrong', don't you?

Given your answer, I don't see exactly what "problem" you have when people argue that torture in gitmo is wrong. What does it matter if declaring it wrong is objective or subjective?

It seems to me that people raise the question of what standard should apply in those cases where disagreement exists about whether or not an action is wrong. My sense is that most civilized people now consider torture wrong, but that some (like Cheney) justify it.

A person who declares that his or her version of morality is "objective" while others are "subjective" generally uses that technique to side-step difficult questions and to undermine other viewpoints.

[Winstonm]

Quote

A person who declares that his or her version of morality is "objective" while others are "subjective" generally uses that technique to side-step difficult questions and to undermine other viewpoints.

My experience has shown that this technique is used as a method to suppress dissent, arguing that dissent over actions is hypocritical to the belief of subjective morality - that "might makes right" is the logical conclusion from the premise that morality is subjective.

All the while, though, the holder of objective views "knows" what is right and wrong and thus is in a superior position to judge if the justifications for immoral actions are "reasonable". The subjective dissenter cannot make a rational judgement about this justification because his worldview requires all actions to be equal until altered by convention.

In the end, it is my opinion that belief in objective morality is more about psychology than philosophy - a mechanism that imparts a sense of superiority.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Feb 10 2009, 12:56 PM, said:

i already knew where richard stood on this, he's pretty much always felt that morality is subjective (relative to whatever the consensus is of the day, society, etc)...

I'd like to understand your position on what constitutes an "objective" morality.

Suppose someone has an internally consistent worldview that, because it begins with different premisses from yours, provides in certain situations different answers to moral questions than does your worldview.

Would you say that different (internally consistent) worldviews could provide differing objective moralities?

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Feb 10 2009, 07:46 PM, said:

I would think if someone used the word "wrong" you should assume he meant "wrong" and not immoral - and the question to ask if you want clarification is "Do you mean immoral?".

Maybe that person meant that in his humble opinion, gitmo is immoral.

Suppose I say: Pain is subjective. Bee stings hurt. This begs the question "to whom do bee stings hurt?". The answer may be "to me". Or "To most people". Or "To the bee-keeper we were just talking about". It may be unimportant. It may be obvious from the context.

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Feb 10 2009, 12:56 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 10 2009, 11:52 AM, said:

Quote

i asked about the act itself

I would say that acts in and of themselves cannot be either moral or immoral. Moral and immoral to me signify choices made, and thus are judgements not about the act but the person who commited the act.

ok, that's fine... in your view nothing is immoral, everything is just a matter of opinion (and those in charge at any one time have the opinions that matter the most)... i already knew where richard stood on this, he's pretty much always felt that morality is subjective (relative to whatever the consensus is of the day, society, etc)... the only problem i have with this view is when people who feel this way argue that this or that is 'wrong' (for example, the torture in gitmo)

Do you think that those of us who think that morality is a human construct, a construct that will afford different guidance in different circumstances (including different eras and different cultures), don't or won't classify some acts as 'wrong' or 'immoral'???

To use a simplistic example put forward by you: the rape and torture of a child strikes me as morally objectionable... as something that it is 'wrong' to do, to allow, or to condone.

The only difference between us on that point appears to be that you somehow take your moral objection to be an expression of some absolute morality, that exists independent of you.

I take my moral objection as an expression of the combined effects of the evolution of a moral sense in humans in general coupled with cultural memes to which I was exposed in my formative years.

You see your perceptions as being based on a universal truth.

Do you admit that other humans have held to a moral code that differs from yours?

Do you admit that the suicide bomber who kills dozens of civilians, including children, may truly believe that his or her act is a moral act.. a sacrifice that will generate reward in heaven? I am not asking you if you share that belief.. only whether you agree that the suicide bomber does.

I assume that you would see the suicide bomber's detonation of his or her device as an immoral act?

If you are with me so far, then it seems to me that on your worldview, one of you.. you or the suicide bomber... is mistaken in your perception of 'objective' morality.

Maybe you would quibble with me on this specific example.. if so, imagine another example from current affairs or history in which you view certain actions as immoral and yet you recognize that the actor(s) at the time held a differing view.. that he, she or they felt that their conduct was moral.

An example might be the poor treatment of p.o.w.'s by the japanese in WWII. By the moral code to which they adhered, the act of surrender by the p.o.w.'s was an immoral act, which disentitled the 'cowards' to any respectful treatment. Western culture, in contrast, suggested that the moral act lay in surrender to minimize the otherwise futile loss of life that continued but doomed resistance would engender. It was morally correct for the officers in command to surrender... it was immoral for them to do so... depending on how one had been raised. Raised in accordance with bushido.. surrender was an act of betrayal of self and country. Raised in the US or the UK, and surrender was an act of mercy towards one's subordinates. Who was 'objectively' moral?

If you recognize that such circumstances have existed, or could exist, then surely you can see that to hold that YOUR view of morality is objectively true becomes either silly or the height of arrogance.

To be clear (since I often accuse you of stating arguments based on false but either ommitted or taken-as-true premises), I am assuming that your world view does not permit two individuals, holding opposite beliefs on the morality of certain behaviour, to both be 'objectively' true in their views. If I am wrong, then please explain how, for example, my belief (if I held it) that torturing a child was objectively a moral act, since it enhances my pleasure.. while your belief (if you held it) that torturing a child for pleasure was objectively immoral could co-exist in the same universe.

[luke warm]

[quote name='PassedOut' date='Feb 10 2009, 02:34 PM'][quote name='luke warm' date='Feb 10 2009, 01:39 PM'] [quote name='Winstonm' date='Feb 10 2009, 01:17 PM'][quote]the only problem i have with this view is when people who feel this way argue that this or that is 'wrong' (for example, the torture in gitmo) [/quote]
This is interesting. It sounds like you are saying that if I argue that torture in Guantanemo is wrong you would disregard that argument because my worldview about objective morality does not match your world view.[/quote]
not at all, but i think it would be okay for me to ask by what standard you assume something to be 'wrong', don't you? [/quote]
Given your answer, I don't see exactly what "problem" you have when people argue that torture in gitmo is wrong. What does it matter if declaring it wrong is objective or subjective?[/quote]
nothing at all, as long as the person saying that morality is relative (subjective) admits that under different circumstances the same act could be 'right' (or moral)
[quote name='Winstonm' date='Feb 10 2009, 02:56 PM'][quote]A person who declares that his or her version of morality is "objective" while others are "subjective" generally uses that technique to side-step difficult questions and to undermine other viewpoints.[/quote]
My experience has shown that this technique is used as a method to suppress dissent, arguing that dissent over actions is hypocritical to the belief of subjective morality - that "might makes right" is the logical conclusion from the premise that morality is subjective.[/quote]
if that isn't the most logical conclusion, what is?
[quote name='PassedOut' date='Feb 10 2009, 03:18 PM'][quote name='luke warm' date='Feb 10 2009, 12:56 PM'] i already knew where richard stood on this, he's pretty much always felt that morality is subjective (relative to whatever the consensus is of the day, society, etc)... [/quote]
I'd like to understand your position on what constitutes an "objective" morality.

Suppose someone has an internally consistent worldview that, because it begins with different premisses from yours, provides in certain situations different answers to moral questions than does your worldview.

Would you say that different (internally consistent) worldviews could provide differing objective moralities?[/quote]
i would have to see examples before i'd concede such a thing, but just because i've yet to witness it doesn't mean it's impossible... by 'objective morality' i mean that an act (we used the torture and rape of small children as an example) is never morally justifiable
[quote name='mikeh' date='Feb 10 2009, 04:32 PM'][quote name='luke warm' date='Feb 10 2009, 12:56 PM'][quote name='Winstonm' date='Feb 10 2009, 11:52 AM'] [quote]i asked about the act itself[/quote]

I would say that acts in and of themselves cannot be either moral or immoral. Moral and immoral to me signify choices made, and thus are judgements not about the act but the person who commited the act.[/quote]
ok, that's fine... in your view nothing is immoral, everything is just a matter of opinion (and those in charge at any one time have the opinions that matter the most)... i already knew where richard stood on this, he's pretty much always felt that morality is subjective (relative to whatever the consensus is of the day, society, etc)... the only problem i have with this view is when people who feel this way argue that this or that is 'wrong' (for example, the torture in gitmo)[/quote]
Do you think that those of us who think that morality is a human construct, a construct that will afford different guidance in different circumstances (including different eras and different cultures), don't or won't classify some acts as 'wrong' or 'immoral'???

To use a simplistic example put forward by you: the rape and torture of a child strikes me as morally objectionable... as something that it is 'wrong' to do, to allow, or to condone.

The only difference between us on that point appears to be that you somehow take your moral objection to be an expression of some absolute morality, that exists independent of you.[/quote]
can you make up a realistic "human construct" in which such a thing might be considered moral? i do think there are people for whom such a thing is not immoral, but under what conditions would you imagine a society could condone such acts? after all, if the act is merely a human construct, it could just as easily be considered moral as it could be considered immoral, correct?
[quote]Do you admit that other humans have held to a moral code that differs from yours?[/quote]
absolutely i do
[quote]Do you admit that the suicide bomber who kills dozens of civilians, including children, may truly believe that his or her act is a moral act.. a sacrifice that will generate reward in heaven? I am not asking you if you share that belief.. only whether you agree that the suicide bomber does.[/quote]
of course i admit that
[quote]I assume that you would see the suicide bomber's detonation of his or her device as an immoral act?[/quote]
i'm on record as saying that's it's my view that indiscriminate murder (or killing, if you prefer) is immoral
[quote]If you are with me so far, then it seems to me that on your worldview, one of you.. you or the suicide bomber... is mistaken in your perception of 'objective' morality.[/quote]
and here's where, imo, you misunderstand what i say... nothing you've said points to the suicide bomber having any opinion as to the moral nature, objective or subjective, of the act... one would suppose that he'd have a different view of the indiscriminate killing of *his* children... if so, his morality is relative
[quote]An example might be the poor treatment of p.o.w.'s by the japanese in WWII. By the moral code to which they adhered, the act of surrender by the p.o.w.'s was an immoral act, which disentitled the 'cowards' to any respectful treatment. Western culture, in contrast, suggested that the moral act lay in surrender to minimize the otherwise futile loss of life that continued but doomed resistance would engender. It was morally correct for the officers in command to surrender... it was immoral for them to do so... depending on how one had been raised. Raised in accordance with bushido.. surrender was an act of betrayal of self and country. Raised in the US or the UK, and surrender was an act of mercy towards one's subordinates. Who was 'objectively' moral?[/quote]
it's my opinion that neither act has anything at all to do with morality... in any case, subjective morality is always conventional - objective morality *can* be conventional, but only by accident
[quote]If you recognize that such circumstances have existed, or could exist, then surely you can see that to hold that YOUR view of morality is objectively true becomes either silly or the height of arrogance.[/quote]
no, surely i don't see that... read what i wrote in a previous reply to you - i am not making a truth claim, i am simply saying that if one holds to a relativistic morality, nothing is right and nothing is wrong, inherently... it depends on consensus... don't you agree?
[quote]To be clear (since I often accuse you of stating arguments based on false but either ommitted or taken-as-true premises), I am assuming that your world view does not permit two individuals, holding opposite beliefs on the morality of certain behaviour, to both be 'objectively' true in their views. If I am wrong, then please explain how, for example, my belief (if I held it) that torturing a child was objectively a moral act, since it enhances my pleasure.. while your belief (if you held it) that torturing a child for pleasure was objectively immoral could co-exist in the same universe.[/quote]
i never said that... what i said was, any person (the torturer or the one who refrains) for whom the act *might* be okay in some instances and might *not* be okay in others, has a subjective morality... that's all i said

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Feb 10 2009, 06:49 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 10 2009, 03:18 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 10 2009, 12:56 PM, said:

i already knew where richard stood on this, he's pretty much always felt that morality is subjective (relative to whatever the consensus is of the day, society, etc)...

I'd like to understand your position on what constitutes an "objective" morality.

Suppose someone has an internally consistent worldview that, because it begins with different premisses from yours, provides in certain situations different answers to moral questions than does your worldview.

Would you say that different (internally consistent) worldviews could provide differing objective moralities?

i would have to see examples before i'd concede such a thing, but just because i've yet to witness it doesn't mean it's impossible... by 'objective morality' i mean that an act (we used the torture and rape of small children as an example) is never morally justifiable

But I gather that what you are saying is that morality is objective when moral questions are evaluated according to an internally consistent worldview, but subjective otherwise.

You contend that you do hold such a worldview, so your determinations are objective, insofar as you correctly apply your worldview.

Although you have not seen one, you allow for the possibility that another internally consistent worldview might produce different answers to some moral questions, but still be objective. You might disagree with those answers, but not on the basis that they were subjective.

Am I understanding you correctly?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Feb 11 2009, 02:49 AM, said:

can you make up a realistic "human construct" in which such a thing might be considered moral? i do think there are people for whom such a thing is not immoral, but under what conditions would you imagine a society could condone such acts? after all, if the act is merely a human construct, it could just as easily be considered moral as it could be considered immoral, correct?

Child labor and child prostitution were rampant and culturally acceptable in the 19th century.

The labor practices would very likely qualify as torture in these, more enlightened times. The child prostitution certainly qualifies as rape.

As I noted earlier, Sparta is a more extreme example where behaviour that we would classify as child rape and torture were glorified.

[Winstonm]

helene_t, on Feb 10 2009, 04:04 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 10 2009, 07:46 PM, said:

I would think if someone used the word "wrong" you should assume he meant "wrong" and not immoral - and the question to ask if you want clarification is "Do you mean immoral?".

Maybe that person meant that in his humble opinion, gitmo is immoral.

Suppose I say: Pain is subjective. Bee stings hurt. This begs the question "to whom do bee stings hurt?". The answer may be "to me". Or "To most people". Or "To the bee-keeper we were just talking about". It may be unimportant. It may be obvious from the context.

Helene,

I do not think the two words are synonymous - immoral and wrong. Wrong can take on many meanings, including the amoral "I took the wrong turn back at the Y in the road."

Jimmy had said that he complains about those who believe that morality is subjective saying something is "wrong". I'm only saying that the word wrong in many cases is not meant as immoral. (Maybe something similar to moral, but if you tracked down the beliefs through debate like we have on this forums the true believer of subjective morals would probably answer like I have - wrong but not necessarily immoral.)

Edit: And, of course, there is always the possibility that when they say wrong they mean immoral, too.

[Winstonm]

Quote

My experience has shown that this technique is used as a method to suppress dissent, arguing that dissent over actions is hypocritical to the belief of subjective morality - that "might makes right" is the logical conclusion from the premise that morality is subjective.


if that isn't the most logical conclusion, what is?

Hey, Jimmy,

I know you are the minority on this thread - so I only wanted to say well done for keeping an even termperament through it all.

Now to your statement. If you had time to read all that I wrote before, I stated that mores determined subjective morality - that does not mean a small, powerful group. Even a country - take Japan during WWII - may have thought themselves morally right but World mores considered the actions immoral. The same can be said for actors who were the "might that won" - like Stalin - yet the world viewed his actions as immoral.

Might makes right is about punishment - or lack thereof. It really has nothing to do with subjective morality.

[Winstonm]

Quote

i would have to see examples before i'd concede such a thing, but just because i've yet to witness it doesn't mean it's impossible...

OK, then, Jimmy, let's try this one. It happens to be real.

Quote

"All of the Palestinians must be killed; men, women, infants, and even their beasts."

This was the religious opinion issued one week ago by Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, director of the Tsomet Institute, a long-established religious institute attended by students and soldiers in the Israeli settlements of the West Bank.

Obviously, this Rabbi does not consider the killing of Palestinian men, women, infants, and beasts to be immoral. He cites evidence in the Torah to justifiy his view - meaning he must believe the acts approved by God, objectively moral.

Quote

In an article published by numerous religious Israeli newspapers two weeks ago and run by the liberal Haaretz on 26 March, Rosen asserted that there is evidence in the Torah to justify this stand

So, how can both your view and the view of the Rabbi both be objectively moral at the same time? Or is someone wrong?

[mikeh]

I just finished watching a program on the Dover school board case: Jimmy expresses the same basic appraoch that the proponents of ID did in that case. I have recognized for some time that his mind is closed...it is impervious... no matter what points are made, they slide off his shield of belief, that appears to allow no room for self-doubt.

If I am correct, and there appears to be strong evidence in the way in which he never seems to 'get' the arguments against his posts, then there is nothing to be gained from rising to the bait. I am sure that my decision, which is to post nothing at all in response to him, will be met with sighs of relief all around, and the only complaints will be 'what took you so long?'

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on Feb 11 2009, 02:01 AM, said:

I just finished watching a program on the Dover school board case: Jimmy expresses the same basic appraoch that the proponents of ID did in that case. I have recognized for some time that his mind is closed...it is impervious... no matter what points are made, they slide off his shield of belief, that appears to allow no room for self-doubt.

If I am correct, and there appears to be strong evidence in the way in which he never seems to 'get' the arguments against his posts, then there is nothing to be gained from rising to the bait. I am sure that my decision, which is to post nothing at all in response to him, will be met with sighs of relief all around, and the only complaints will be 'what took you so long?'

If that was the program on PBS it was excellent. I was especially proud that the Republican, Bush-appointed judge didn't allow politics to interfere with his legal decision.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Feb 10 2009, 07:24 PM, said:

But I gather that what you are saying is that morality is objective when moral questions are evaluated according to an internally consistent worldview, but subjective otherwise.

Am I understanding you correctly?

no you aren't... i don't hold to objective morality because of my worldview, but i can account for it from within my worldview... start with your view of morality... do you believe it is objective or subjective? whatever your answer, it is a part of your view...

hrothgar, on Feb 10 2009, 07:31 PM, said:

Child labor and child prostitution were rampant and culturally acceptable in the 19th century.

The labor practices would very likely qualify as torture in these, more enlightened times.  The child prostitution certainly qualifies as rape.

As I noted earlier, Sparta is a more extreme example where behaviour that we would classify as child rape and torture were glorified.

that might be true richard, but i never said that people don't have relative moralities

Winstonm, on Feb 11 2009, 02:00 AM, said:

Quote

i would have to see examples before i'd concede such a thing, but just because i've yet to witness it doesn't mean it's impossible...

OK, then, Jimmy, let's try this one. It happens to be real.

Quote

"All of the Palestinians must be killed; men, women, infants, and even their beasts."

This was the religious opinion issued one week ago by Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, director of the Tsomet Institute, a long-established religious institute attended by students and soldiers in the Israeli settlements of the West Bank.

Obviously, this Rabbi does not consider the killing of Palestinian men, women, infants, and beasts to be immoral. He cites evidence in the Torah to justifiy his view - meaning he must believe the acts approved by God, objectively moral.

Quote

In an article published by numerous religious Israeli newspapers two weeks ago and run by the liberal Haaretz on 26 March, Rosen asserted that there is evidence in the Torah to justify this stand

So, how can both your view and the view of the Rabbi both be objectively moral at the same time? Or is someone wrong?

i don't, winston... the rabbi evidently thinks it's okay to murder those palestinians but not okay for them to return the favor... he has a subjective morality... i think the act itself is immoral... i don't understand why this seems hard to understand, maybe it's the way i'm expressing it

mikeh, on Feb 11 2009, 02:01 AM, said:

I just finished watching a program on the Dover school board case: Jimmy expresses the same basic appraoch that the proponents of ID did in that case. I have recognized for some time that his mind is closed...it is impervious... no matter what points are made, they slide off his shield of belief, that appears to allow no room for self-doubt.

If I am correct, and there appears to be strong evidence in the way in which he never seems to 'get' the arguments against his posts, then there is nothing to be gained from rising to the bait. I am sure that my decision, which is to post nothing at all in response to him, will be met with sighs of relief all around, and the only complaints will be 'what took you so long?'          

doubt about what? all i've said is that any one person can have either a subjective or an objective morality and that i've yet to see anyone with a subjective morality able to account for it from within her worldview while retaining an internal cohesiveness

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Feb 11 2009, 02:16 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 10 2009, 07:31 PM, said:

Child labor and child prostitution were rampant and culturally acceptable in the 19th century.

The labor practices would very likely qualify as torture in these, more enlightened times.  The child prostitution certainly qualifies as rape.

As I noted earlier, Sparta is a more extreme example where behaviour that we would classify as child rape and torture were glorified.

that might be true richard, but i never said that people don't have relative moralities

Pathetic... Absolutely pathetic...

Lets review this portion of the conversation:

You specifically asked whether anyone could provide examples where killing / raping / torturing children was condoned by the society as a whole. I believe that the specifc quote went something like:

Quote

can you make up a realistic "human construct" in which such a thing might be considered moral? i do think there are people for whom such a thing is not immoral, but under what conditions would you imagine a society could condone such acts? after all, if the act is merely a human construct, it could just as easily be considered moral as it could be considered immoral, correct?

Its true, you never explictly stated why you wanted said example, however, the presumption was pretty clear:

Killing / Torturing / Killing children is so horrific that no society would every condone such an action...

Therefore, if folks can't provide an example of said society, this is evidence in favor of objective morality...

I pointed out that there are any number of societies with no such taboos...

You respond by claiming "Well, I guess Killing/Raping/Torturing small children isn't one of those areas where morality is a bit fuzzy."

Off you go, as oblivious to facts (or anything else that runs counter to your world view) as ever...