Arguments

The question is, is this necessarily right? I know I'm not exempt from this either as you say, but I try to better myself.

I don't see any way it could not be right.

But what if someone is uncomfortable around a certain member of minority X and his/her moral beliefs are shaped around that? Is that correct?

Correct as in, "that's why he thinks that way".

Correct as in, "I think he has a right to do that", certainly not. But the only reason I think that is because racism makes me uncomfortable.

@Spain Sun People don't have a right to be uncomfortable?

There's a word for that position, by the way.

Tzetze: There's a name for everything.

KCK: I can't give a meaningful answer to that question. I'm not sure there is one.

Spain, I vehemently disagree with your position on morality. Just because some people you observed seem to use it this way, does not make it universally this way.

There are plenty of things that make me uncomfortable, and I don't find them morally wrong. Our gut reactions to things are frequently wrong and I see no reason why morality is an exception. As you observed, this frequently result in terrible attitudes towards certain groups/activities.

I, for one, start with a few core morals I care about, which I admit come from out of my ass. (Minimizing harm, maximizing happiness, if you're curious). Then I see how my various other positions affect these two.

Just because some people conflate morality with gut reactions, does not make it so.

@Spain: Racism makes you uncomfortable. Being racist might not make he or she uncomfortable. White supremacy and all that. Another interesting case of prejudice: many religious people think gay people are immoral, which is backed up by their uneasiness to such behavior. Additionally, they think the opposing side trying to gain rights is against their religious beliefs. And that's uncomfortable to them.

edited 22nd Feb '11 4:20:43 PM by snailbait

KCK@ People have a right to be uncomfortable, they DONT have the right to force people to conform to their standards just to make the discomfort go away.

@SS That depends on the form of government.

No, it doesnt matter what the goverment is, you do not have the right to force other people to be a certain way. Sure, you CAN, under threat of force, but its not right.

Just because some people conflate morality with gut reactions, does not make it so.

This would be more convincing if you didn't use your own gut-feeling morality as an example.

@SS By what evidence do you have that it's not "right"? Also, what do you mean by force?

^ Force, as in enforce social standards of morality with threats of punishment, like the old anti-sodomy laws, or the ban against interracial marriages.

@SS Oh...well, then I disagree.

...please tell me you meant the argument, and not that interracial marriage and homosexuality should be illegal.

@SS I disagree that it is wrong for a society to have laws that "enforce" a certain type of morality.

Well, it is of course inevitable that some morality is in the laws, but there has to be some limit. Who are the goverment to say what sexuality someone can be, excluding pedophilia, or what they can drink, like they did with prohibition? Laws like that just make everything worse.

This would be more convincing if you didn't use your own gut-feeling morality as an example.

True.

I still think it's different than what Spain is saying, however.

Besides, at what point is it reducto ad absurdium? Everything relies on some sort of assumption.

@SS The government—assuming you're talking a democratic government—consists of people and is composed of the will of the people; the government is—in my opinion—nothing more than a tool, a tool used by those with power.

Therefore to me, you're asking what right do those in power have to make the rules? Simply stated, those in power make the rules. That doesn't make the rules right or just, they're just the rules. In order to change the rules, one must gain the favor of those in power.

Well yes, but emotivism is more specific: That moral propositions are all based on emotionally driven assumptions. As opposed to something else, like gods.

...like the gods

Oh no, religion derail.

I know some people will be offended, but I'm of the opinion that belief in gods would fall under some kind of emotional reaction as well.

Or even more offensive, that people made up the idea of gods to enforce the emotional reactions of those in power.

There are things that I am uncomfortable with that I don't regard as immoral, and there are things that I will intellectually accept as moral but which personally disturb me somewhat, so I am unconvinced, Spain.

That's what constant self-analysis is for.

Then, if an argument made by another person causes you to reassess a specific view and notice an inconsistency, what's wrong with that?

edited 22nd Feb '11 6:32:11 PM by BobbyG

^^Regardless, they're not using their own emotions as the basis for their morals.

I dunno, given the number of people that don't follow even the clearer, exact written rules, their decision to diverge from said writings has to come from somewhere...

Or in other words, their interpretation of religion conveniently matches their emotional response; I guess if that were the case it would be a chicken and egg question of which came first.

Eh, this is kind of silly. I'm speculating quite a bit.