re: IVF clinic bomber was a leftist, wanted to attack pro life movement and left a manifesto

quote:

---

Non-theistic moral frameworks rise even above personal preference.

---

Arbitrarily, because there is no objective reason why they must. They just do, or at least can.

quote:

---

For example, while the societal goal of a prosperous nation is ultimately a subjective preference, it's one that is universally shared. Is it fair to reduce things that are universally accepted to mere "personal preference"?

---

Yes, because they don't have to be that way and there certainly isn't any reason why they must be that way. You can't go from an is to an ought. All you are doing is saying that the world may be a certain way, but that doesn't mean that it should be that way.

But even in that example, societies disagree about whether prosperity is the ultimate goal or just a goal, and they disagree on what prosperity even looks like or should look like. For some, more money and accumulated wealth is the standard for prosperity. For others, better health outcomes and length of life are what matter. For some, having a religious or moral uprightness is more important than material wealth, and so on.

It also doesn't follow that because multiple societies share a common goal that the goal itself is a morally transcendent good. Such a judgement requires an objective standard to compare to. Since all non-objective standards are subjective by definition, it is impossible that any standard can be objectively better (or worse) than another. Having mutliple individuals or even multiple societies (or even all societies) agree with a common subjective standard does not mean that standard is anything but subjective, and ultimately arbitrary.

quote:

---

We are creatures of flesh and bone, and we will share, at the macro level, very similar preferences (prosperity, security, freedom, etc.). Based on those societal preferences, you can objectively tell which laws will move you closer to, or further away, from those societal preferences.

---

Sure, once you pick an arbitrary standard to run with, you can judge laws and actions that will move you closer to or further from that goal. That isn't my point, though. My point is that all subjective standards are arbitrary at their core, and therefore there is no standard that is objectively better or worse than any other.

If you run with material prosperity as your overarching standard for what "good" looks like, then you'll have different laws and cultural norms that move towards that goal compared to a national where a particular religious truth is paramount, especially if that truth downplays or even shuns material prosperity.

We have some shared preferences because we are all made in the image of God and reflect that image, even if we don't want to believe it. However, sin gets in the way and causes us to prefer and to chase after things that are not for our good, ultimately. That leads to differences in goals, and even societal goals. If you reject the objective standard of God's character and command, you're left with doing whatever is best in your own eyes (subjectivity), and without an objective standard to look to, all else becomes nothing more than personal preference, which is arbitrary at its roots.

quote:

---

If you're trying to steel-man your opponent's argument, I'd suggest using the phrase "constructed objectivity", or something similar.

---

Not sure how objectivity can be constructed by subjective persons. It doesn't really convey the essence of subjectivity.

quote:

---

Yes, because they don't have to be that way and there certainly isn't any reason why they must be that way.

---

Cars don't need front windshields, but virtually every person on earth wanting their cars to have a front windshield isn't what people typically associate with the phrase "personal preference".

Personal preference is going to be things like car color, not whether a car should come with square or round wheels--even if cars could physically come with square wheels.

Again, you're throwing around "personal preference" and "arbitrary" because you happen to like the assumptions associated with those words or phrases, not because their actually accurately describing what you're arguing against.

quote:

---

My point is that all subjective standards are arbitrary at their core,

---

Then, definitionally, you are incorrect. Replace arbitrary with another word and it might be correct.

quote:

---

But even in that example, societies disagree about whether prosperity is the ultimate goal or just a goal, and they disagree on what prosperity even looks like or should look like. For some, more money and accumulated wealth is the standard for prosperity. For others, better health outcomes and length of life are what matter. For some, having a religious or moral uprightness is more important than material wealth, and so on.

---

Sure, and some people prefer pizza over burgers, and even amongst the people who prefer pizza some like pineapples and some don't.

But virtually everyone will be against eating glass, and the ones who are for it don't live long enough for their opinions to matter much.

What you're going to argue, and have argued in the past, is that this personal preference/arbitrary nature of non-classical theistic moral systems will spiral down into chaos where we'll be questioning whether or not we should outlaw rape because we're so morally lost.

That's simply not the case, because those moral systems aren't arbitrary or based on personal preference like you're claiming.

quote:

---

Not sure how objectivity can be constructed by subjective persons. It doesn't really convey the essence of subjectivity.

---

These subjective persons are subject to an objective universe where you don't get to choose whether you like starvation or not. These objective truths about humanity do play a role in what we view as right/wrong.

Why is this incident being discussed on the poliboard? A leftist ideologue targeting a fertility clinic in a suicide bombing after writing a manifesto has nothing whatsoever to do with partisan politics.*










































* Am I doing it right?

There will be a civil war soon. I hope only I'm not too old to participate.

quote:

---

What you're describing is another example of subjectivity: what "virtually every person on earth" wants is still subjective. For one, because not everyone wants it, but most importantly, because it is a want in the first place.

The desire--or even perceived need--comes from the mind of the individual, making it subjective. Whether it is color or even if it has windshields (plenty of people buy vehicles without windshields, like motorcycles, and even some cars are made that way), what makes it subjective is that it originates from the human mind rather than being imposed upon humans from outside ourselves. The laws of physics are objective because they exist whether or not human beings want them to or not, for instance.

---

I'm not discussing subjectivity.

I'm discussing what people typically mean when they say personal preference.

I noticed you didn't show me cars with square wheels.

"Why ought a car have round wheels? Without an objective tire shape establishing God, humanity might devolve into societies that embrace square wheels. What would you say? That wheels should be round? Says who? It's all personal preference!"

quote:

---

They are accurate. It seems you are arguing against those words because you happen to not like their meaning.

---

Let's go back to it, then.


whim
/(h)wim/
noun
1.
a sudden desire or change of mind, especially one that is unusual or unexplained.
"she bought it on a whim"

You already agreed to the definition of arbitrary I supplied. You got squeamish when I defined "whim" and admitted that I might have a point if one were to be extremely technical. Lets go down this path. Do you agree with this definition of "whim"?

quote:

---

If there is no reason why anyone must to go with utility over personal comfort or religious teaching as the ultimate standard, then the standard chosen is done so arbitrarily.

---

Then people "arbitrarily" choose wheel shapes for their automobiles. When you reduce "arbitrarily" to that level, it looses the punch you're looking for.

You're like a progressive calling everything racist. You dilute the word and reduce the negative connotations of it.

quote:

---

You still don't seem get it. You are stuck on whether a majority of people agree with something, that it must mean it's objective. That's not how it works. If the majority of people agree that the color green was the "best" color, all that would mean is that a lot of people agree with a subjective opinion. You don't go from subjective (originating from within the human experience) to objective (originating outside the human experience) by consensus. Consensus can also change over time. Laws of nature do not change based on opinions changing within a particular society.

---

I never said majority opinion = objectivity.

You're the one who keeps wanting to drag this to a strictly subjective/objective discussion.

My gripe, at least here and now, are the words you're using.

Your use of arbitrary is setting up the doomsday scenario where "if we stop believing in an objective moral giver we'll have no compass and risk devolving into a soceity that allows for rape, murder, theft, etc."

Sorry, but that's just not true, for all the aforementioned reasons.

quote:

---

What I'm pointing out to you is that, absent an objective standard--i.e., God's moral law--that rape cannot be objectively immoral or "wrong". According to the logic of your own worldview, rape cannot be objectively immoral.

---

Again, I'm not sure who you are arguing against. I'm discussing your word usage. And you keep wanting to drag this back to a subjective/objective discussion.

That's my argument >>You're using the word arbitrary incorrectly to poison the well. << That's my argument.

quote:

---

I'm not discussing subjectivity.

I'm discussing what people typically mean when they say personal preference.

---

This portion of the discussion started with me saying that your position is arbitrary, to which you said that was demonstrably false. I responded that it isn't false, but rather that without an objective standard, all you have is irrational arbitrariness, basing positions on whatever seems right in your own subjective experience.

You can say whatever you want about what people typically mean, but I'm telling you what I mean and how your position is necessarily arbitrary because it is subjective.

quote:

---

I noticed you didn't show me cars with square wheels.

---

The tire example is the same as the windshield in the sense that there is no objective reason why wheels must be round vs. square. They are round for practical reasons. To compare this to morality is to acknowledge that morality is merely pragmatic in nature, and I suspect you wouldn't agree with moral pragmatism.

Morality and wheel shape are fundamentally different things, however it doesn't really matter in terms of my argument, because there's nothing "wrong" with having square wheels. If someone wanted to have them, they could certainly do so. The reason wheels are round is due to the efficiency of the shape for the purpose they are made for. However, if someone wanted a different experience while driving, they can certainly choose whatever shape wheel they want (if they could obtain it). A preference for a smooth ride is still a preference at the end of the day, even if most people share it.

quote:

---

Let's go back to it, then.


whim...

You already agreed to the definition of arbitrary I supplied. You got squeamish when I defined "whim" and admitted that I might have a point if one were to be extremely technical. Lets go down this path. Do you agree with this definition of "whim"?

---

With "whim", yes, however the definition you provided has more to it than just that word alone. It also could include random choice, and it is contrasted with reason or a system for choosing. I was focused more on the 2nd half of the definition and I further clarified in subsequent posts. I then later abandoned the definition you provided entirely because of its lack of specificity to what I was saying (and meaning) and told you in more words what I was getting at.

To be explicit, upon further consideration, I find that definition unhelpful in the discussion because it isn't as close to what I'm talking about as the 2nd definition of Merriam -Webster. The first definition they provide is close to what you gave, but it isn't as precise as the 2nd definition for what I'm trying to relay and discuss. It certainly doesn't allow for an entirety of focus on the word "whim", which is not necessary for what makes subjective standards arbitrary.

What I'm getting at is that people put added weight on certain assumptions and presuppositions to develop a standard of morality that adheres with preferences that they posses. That moral standard is either developed from within the human experience (subjectivity), or from without (objectivity).

So at this point, consider the definition you initially provided retired for this discussion, as I attempted to do with my previous clarification. If you're concerned with the ideas being discussed rather than winning a technicality on a word that I don't think is helpful, you'll move on and discuss based on what I mean with my words as further clarified already.

quote:

---

Then people "arbitrarily" choose wheel shapes for their automobiles. When you reduce "arbitrarily" to that level, it looses the punch you're looking for.

---

Not exactly. I'm discussing the arbitrariness of the ultimate standards used, not whether or not those arbitrary standards can be utilitarian in decision making. You can't seem to distinguish between a choice and the framework used to make a choice. A choice by itself may be reasonable based on the framework used, such as preferring round wheels because one wants a smooth ride and efficiency in mobility. The framework (the desire for a smooth ride and efficiency) is what is arbitrary at the end of the day, as there is no objective reason why that standard or framework is necessarily better than another.

quote:

---

You're like a progressive calling everything racist. You dilute the word and reduce the negative connotations of it.

---

I was quite comfortable with what I was saying until you imposed a definition that I went along with when I shouldn't have. After resetting and explaining what I actually meant, you have now gone and tried to revert back, probably to try to win the argument by technicality rather than addressing the ideological issues at stake.

I've written many words (in this thread and many previously) for the sake of clarifying exactly what I mean and you are now going back to the word "whim" and accusing me of changing meanings of words like a progressive. You can drop that right now and actually engage with what I'm saying. I'm not equivocating or redefining anything. I'm operating off of the definition I linked to above: "based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something"

quote:

---

I never said majority opinion = objectivity.

You're the one who keeps wanting to drag this to a strictly subjective/objective discussion.

---

Subjectivity and objectivity in moral standards are exactly what I've been talking about from the beginning. My first response to you was exactly to this point: because your moral standard is entirely subjective, it is ultimately arbitrary and of no intrinsic value. The subjectivity of your position is precisely why I called it arbitrary. Or in other words, because your moral standard is based on personal preference, it is arbitrary. I've been consistent with this while you, for some reason that I don't understand, are focusing on the word "whim".

quote:

---

Your use of arbitrary is setting up the doomsday scenario where "if we stop believing in an objective moral giver we'll have no compass and risk devolving into a soceity that allows for rape, murder, theft, etc."

Sorry, but that's just not true, for all the aforementioned reasons.

---

This is true logically. Without an objective standard of morality, all that exists is "might makes right", and there is no rational basis for praising one standard above another or condemning one standard over another. Logically, if all morality is ultimately subjective, then Hitler's morality is no better or worse than any other moral outlook.

quote:

---

Again, I'm not sure who you are arguing against. I'm discussing your word usage. And you keep wanting to drag this back to a subjective/objective discussion.

---

You started by labeling yourself as pro-life and me as pro-choice as a jab at me for saying that the atheistic worldview is irrational and inconsistent. I'm explaining to you (again) exactly why I made that statement, and you've done nothing to contradict it. You are focusing on a word choice that is limited by a definition that you provided and which I have subsequently rejected and substituted for sake of clarity.

quote:

---

That's my argument >>You're using the word arbitrary incorrectly to poison the well. << That's my argument.

---

Again, you're refusing to engage with what I'm actually saying and focusing on a definition that I have rejected based on the lack of clarity it provides in this discussion. My intent at charity resulted in lack of clarity.

If you need a win, take it. I was wrong to agree to the initial definition you provided for this discussion.

Now that that's clear, you can engage with what I actually am talking about.

quote:

---

Doesn't have much support

---

he always has you

Foo - excellent observation. Nihilism has crept far into modern thinking. It has always been there just barely at the fringes, but it has gained a larger foothold over the past 100 years or so and has its adherents mainly on the left of the political spectrum, but you can see it on the right at times as well.

There is a twisting of objective reality that even ignores overly secular thinking. Pro-mortalist thinking as this guy mentions is not something that has just crept into "philosophical" thinking, it's a thinking that has wormed its way through post modern....post structuralist thinking for 40-50 years going back to the late 1960's.....think, the statement, "I didn't ask to be born." I used to get it from my daughter when I would ask her to do things., etc. That statement made me mad as hell, still does even though she doesn't say it ever anymore and she was saying it to justify being lazy

quote:

---

If wanting a car with round wheels is an arbitrary decision, what word would you use to describe someone randomly selecting a number between 1-10 to determine who gets to select a movie to watch amongst a group of friends?

---

Both are arbitrary in an ultimate sense. The random choice is arbitrary on its face, as the choice could be made any number of ways and one was simply picked.

The round wheel is not arbitrary as a choice because it has a basis for why the wheel is preferred, but the basis underpinning the choice, itself, is arbitrary because there is no ultimate reason why one should have anything with wheels at all, much less round vs square. It is a personal preference that drives the decision in the end without an objective “ought” at its core.