- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Question for libs - if you believe morals are subjective, why is racism wrong?
Posted on 4/11/21 at 4:24 pm
Posted on 4/11/21 at 4:24 pm
Just a little critical thinking exercise here.
Liberals and the woke industry are busy telling everyone they disagree with they are "racist". As if being "racist" is immoral. But, morality, according to liberals is subjective, ergo there really is no concrete "right or wrong" - morals and ethics are just a matter of personal preference that one can choose like choosing a flavor of ice cream.
So, for the liberals here, ignoring the fact that you've butchered the meaning of the term racism, why the frick should I care if I'm "racist" according to liberal standards?
It's just your opinion. Nothing more. Why are you right? Of course, you can't be "right" because morality isn't objective, according to you.
I'd like a logical explanation for this from the liberals. But, I know I'll never get one.
Liberals and the woke industry are busy telling everyone they disagree with they are "racist". As if being "racist" is immoral. But, morality, according to liberals is subjective, ergo there really is no concrete "right or wrong" - morals and ethics are just a matter of personal preference that one can choose like choosing a flavor of ice cream.
So, for the liberals here, ignoring the fact that you've butchered the meaning of the term racism, why the frick should I care if I'm "racist" according to liberal standards?
It's just your opinion. Nothing more. Why are you right? Of course, you can't be "right" because morality isn't objective, according to you.
I'd like a logical explanation for this from the liberals. But, I know I'll never get one.
12
Posted on 4/11/21 at 4:26 pm to BiteMe2020
Liberals dont have morals, they only believe in authoritarianism and murder.
Posted on 4/11/21 at 4:27 pm to Mud_Till_May
Liberals hate God and hate themselves - they know they are destined for hell so they’re life’s mission is to make earth hell.
Posted on 4/11/21 at 4:28 pm to Mud_Till_May
quote:
Liberals dont have morals, they only believe in authoritarianism and murder.
While this is simple, demonstrable fact, I'd like to hear a liberal try to explain it.
Liberals certainly pretend to have morals - they argue vehemently that x or y is "wrong". I'd like them to explain how they reconcile their moral subjectivism with their absolute certainty that disagreeing with - say gay marriage - is objectively "wrong".
Posted on 4/11/21 at 4:28 pm to BiteMe2020
It's not. It's a tool to divide.
Posted on 4/11/21 at 4:28 pm to BiteMe2020
Agreed, as we somehow rose out of the primordial slime we acquired opinions, maybe racism is an aspect of evolution. Or there is no such thing as evolution, but don’t preach it both ways.
Posted on 4/11/21 at 4:31 pm to BiteMe2020
The only “morals” liberals have are vapidly used to justify any given means to an end that benefits them at the time.
Posted on 4/11/21 at 4:32 pm to Padme
quote:
Agreed, as we somehow rose out of the primordial slime we acquired opinions, maybe racism is an aspect of evolution. Or there is no such thing as evolution, but don’t preach it both ways.
If I were an atheist sociologist, I'd be tempted to say that racism is a form of tribalism. Tribalism was necessary to the survival of clans and tribes in early human history, and this is a characteristic of humanity (the inbred distrust of someone with a different skin color) that served humanity for the first 100,000 years but needs to be cast away now.
Of course, if you believe in objective morality, as I do, then racism is and has been always wrong - full stop. It's just that this is a part of ethical knowledge that humans have more recently discovered.
This explanation, however, isn't available to someone who affirms that morals are purely subjective.
Posted on 4/11/21 at 4:34 pm to Crimson1st
quote:
The only “morals” liberals have are vapidly used to justify any given means to an end that benefits them at the time.
This, also, is absolutely true.
However, a liberal won't admit to "vapidly" using someone else's morals they don't actually believe in to beat them over the head... which is what liberals actually do.
I'm still looking for a liberal to explain this and attempt to make it reconcile logically.
This may be one of the threads where liberals don't show up....
Posted on 4/11/21 at 4:37 pm to BiteMe2020
Libs aren't against racism. At the least they are for racism against white people and asians.
Posted on 4/11/21 at 4:39 pm to squid_hunt
quote:
Libs aren't against racism. At the least they are for racism against white people and asians.
An accurate point, indeed. Yale has no problem discriminating against Asians to make room for blacks - by definition an explicit act of racism. But they think that their admissions policy is objectively "right".
I'd like to hear a liberal explain how all of this reconciles.
I'd say I'm beginning to think that no liberal can logically explain this discrepancy, but I've actually known this is the case for a couple of decades now.
This post was edited on 4/11/21 at 4:40 pm
Posted on 4/11/21 at 4:42 pm to BiteMe2020
quote:
logical explanation
OOPS! That's impossible for liberals.
The answer is: if you are a conservative, you are wrong no matter the issue.
LIBS never make any sense...just look at the recent issues they support....defund police, increase taxes, violence is good, etc....
Posted on 4/11/21 at 4:43 pm to BiteMe2020
Liberals are the ultimate hypocrites.
Posted on 4/11/21 at 4:44 pm to oldskule
quote:
OOPS! That's impossible for liberals.
The answer is: if you are a conservative, you are wrong no matter the issue.
LIBS never make any sense...just look at the recent issues they support....defund police, increase taxes, violence is good, etc....
Also an interesting take. "If you're conservative, you're wrong no matter what" is simply another liberal way of saying, "I prefer vanilla ice cream to your chocolate, ergo you're wrong."
There's not really much logic there, if you define right or wrong in that manner.
I mean, really, if a racist guy had indeed made a noose to intimidate NASCAR driver Bubba Wallace, why is that wrong? Just want a liberal to explain that to me.
Wrong means something different than "I'm offended by it". So what? Someone being offended is surely subjective... Morals are indeed subjective, according to liberals, so whatever morals liberals prescribe, I'm free to cast aside.
Sounds like no liberals are capable of explaining this in a way that makes any sense.
Let's up the ante here. Liberals want to take guns away from over 100 million Americans, while saying nothing about the violence in Chicago, or while giving fully automatic weapons to drug dealing cartels. Either murders are objectively wrong, or murders are simply something we have a personal opinion about. Liberals seem to like murder when it occurs with a black guy as the perp, but hate it with a white guy as a perp. This isn't logical. But I'm open to a liberal convincing me of their reasoning.
No takers so far?
This post was edited on 4/11/21 at 4:52 pm
Posted on 4/11/21 at 4:49 pm to BiteMe2020
quote:
Question for libs - if you believe morals are subjective, why is racism wrong?
Search Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris on YouTube, they had a really good discussion on subjective morality. Pretty sure it was a two nighter, and they set aside 45 minutes for QnA both nights and when they got to that point of the event they asked the audience if they wanted to move to QnA or keep talking and both nights the crowd overwhelmingly wanted them to continue.
Probably one of the best discussions I've heard on the topic.
This post was edited on 4/11/21 at 4:50 pm
Posted on 4/11/21 at 4:58 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Search Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris on YouTube,
I did that years ago.
Sam Harris is one of the saner liberals, but his arguments still fail. He cannot logically anchor his morality, either.
Sam seems to be one of the rare atheists that says that morality is objective (he tried to defend his version of objective morality against William Lane Craig, but failed, IMHO), and the basic moral axiom is "whatever makes the most humans flourish" is the base axiom on which to base a system of morality.
However, he's smuggling in an assumption here. That people "ought" to care what makes others flourish. He has no logical grounding for that, at all.
I doubt Sam Harris would agree with all the woke bull shite these days, but don't know for sure.
He's close, but still fails.
This post was edited on 4/11/21 at 5:00 pm
Posted on 4/11/21 at 5:01 pm to BiteMe2020
quote:
Just want a liberal to explain that to me.
I'm not a progressive, although I am a classical liberal, but my best understanding of that line of reasoning says that while morals are ultimately subjective, they can be judged objectively with how well they serve set goals.
In other words, outlawing murder, rape, and theft objectively create a society where people, and their possessions, are safer.
If you set the goal to be a "prosperous and safe society" some morals will objectively lead people to that goal and other morals will objectively lead people away from that goal.
Essentially they push the subjective nature of morality from the values themselves to the goals.
It's certainly more palatable, as you'll get more agreement on societal goals rather than which moral codes are "right", but ultimately it's still subjective. Why should your goal be a "prosperous and safe society" rather than a "poverty stricken and chaotic society" (as I'm sure there are at least a handful of people in the world which may rather that)?
Posted on 4/11/21 at 5:08 pm to BiteMe2020
quote:
That people "ought" to care what makes others flourish. He has no logical grounding for that, at all.
I haven't read his book on the matter, and I'm with you in that I don't think he successfully argues that humanity can "get an ought from an is", but I think his logical grounding for that is to point out that individuals flourish more when the society around them flourishes (look at capitalism's effect on poverty as an example).
I can steal from someone and get their money, and that certainly helps me flourish, and I'm certainly not concerning myself with the well-being of the person I stole from, but living in a society like that will put a much lower ceiling on how much I'd flourish when compared to how high a flourishing ceiling would be if I lived in a society that outlawed theft.
Without being concerned with the well-being of others, who's going to grow my food? Man my powerplants? Make my electronics? Sing my favorite songs or watch my favorite shows?
Posted on 4/11/21 at 5:18 pm to Azkiger
quote:
In other words, outlawing murder, rape, and theft objectively create a society where people, and their possessions, are safer.
Well unless you are murdering leftist politicians...
Posted on 4/11/21 at 5:24 pm to Padme
quote:
Well unless you are murdering leftist politicians...
Reminds me a long ethics conversation (about "do the ends justify the means") I had with my wife last night. While most people would say no, there are instances where they do think that it does (the trolly dilemma, for example), even if they don't draw a connection between what they want/would do and the concept of "the ends justify the means".
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News