Georgia school drops assignment asking elementary schoolers to justify genocide against Natives
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
www.dailykos.com /stories/2077172
Georgia school drops assignment asking elementary schoolers to justify genocide against Natives
Marissa Higgins Daily Kos Staff 3-4 minutes
After about a week of widespread media outcry, a public charter elementary school in Georgia has finally removed a deeply offensive assignment from its curriculum. Fourth graders were prompted to “write a letter” to Andrew Jackson from the perspective of an “American settler” arguing in defense of “removing the Cherokee” to help the country “grow and prosper.” If you’re thinking: What the … ? You’re not alone! The assignment is asking young people to justify the systemic removal of Indigenous folks from their homes—genocide, in a word.
This became news after a parent in Virginia noticed the assignment had been shared in a private Facebook group by a parent whose child is enrolled in school in Georgia. Jennifer Martin, the Virginia parent who saw the assignment, told Business Insider she immediately recognized the homework prompt as what it is: “prioritizing the feelings of settlers and colonizers” instead of actual honest history. Martin told the outlet that this sort of lesson plan could easily end up in a public school if it’s happening at a charter school that has state funding. No matter what school it’s taught in, frankly, it’s completely unacceptable.
"The truth of American history,” Martin continued to the news outlet. “And what happened to indigenous peoples and enslaved Africans and other people of color, shouldn't be whitewashed."
Here is her original tweet, which quickly went viral.
my friend's kid's school in Georgia sent homework with this question pic.twitter.com/pSFhJ0Ucvz
— Jennifer C. Martin (@notreallyjcm) January 20, 2022
As a review of that history, by the way, Jackson signed into law the Indian Removal Act in 1830. From there, more than 100,000 Native folks were violently displaced, and more than 15,000 died. In particular, the Cherokee tribe referenced in the assignment lost thousands of lives on the Trail of Tears. People faced horrifying starvation, violence, exposure, and disease.
To be clear, this is mass violence and an example of ethnic cleansing. There’s long-term trauma and loss of culture and oral history, not to mention instances of things like child abuse and sexual abuse, too. Sure, fourth graders likely aren’t ready to hear all of that in those exact terms, but whitewashing history is an unacceptable alternative. Instead of “both sides” perspectives, kids deserve to be taught right from wrong, and when it comes to literal genocide, it’s very clearly a “wrong.”
It’s also worth remembering that kids in the classroom might have lost family through this very violence or might be living in the long-term effects of mass genocide and displacement; we know Native folks face a number of structural barriers when it comes to education, health care, being targeted by police, and economic mobility. This doesn’t happen by sheer luck or coincidence—it’s the result of structural and systemic racism, forced displacement, and targeted efforts to stamp out culture and—literally—life. History isn’t neutral and neither are the ways it impacts life for generations.
A spokesperson for the school emailed Insider with a statement, saying that the next question asked students to write from the perspective of a “Cherokee Indian” and explain why the Indian Removal Act was “harmful.” The email went on to say that while there is “often” a benefit to having students consider all sides of an issue, they did remove this assignment going forward because they feel there are “more appropriate” ways to teach the matter.
This goes back to the “both sides” argument. It is, truly, so harmful in general but especially to marginalized folks—no one deserves to sit in a classroom and feel their humanity be debated. No one should have to listen to their peers argue against their basic rights.
While I don’t recall having this particular assignment growing up, I do remember having assigned “debates” where we argued for and against things like LGBTQ+ equality, women having the right to vote, having English be a national language—and while people argued different sides, I don’t remember any of those teachers making it explicitly clear which side of the issue was “right,” and that’s a problem when kids walk away feeling that they really nailed it—same-sex couples don’t deserve marriage equality benefits, or so on.
Our youth deserve better.
Article is LOCKED by moderator [Split Personality]
Who is online
267 visitors
I wonder how many white parents at that school district complained about that assignment.
I wonder how many of them complained that the assignment was dropped.
According to the right, we cant teach 4th graders about racism because they are not ready to handle the topic.
But using this example, we can teach 4th graders to justify taking the land and lives of Native Americans because it would pave the way for white settlement.
Are 4th graders ready for that ?
According to the right????? C'mon John.
They are just trying to make sure that we see things from all sides.... /s
How the hell does anyone justify genocide?
Actually, I don't think that is a bad idea, although I think the exercise was conducted in the wrong grade. If done properly, I think it would be an excellent way to introduce critical thinking about such issues, as well as a great way to explore concepts of morality.
Thomas in 3 says...
I would hope the intent was more than that. While arguing first one side and then the other would hopefully expose how each side saw things, the goal of the exercise, I would hope, would be to examine the legitimacy of each side's views. That is, not simply what each side's view was but why did they have them, what led them to have them and were they valid? Let them stand in each side's shoes and then step back from both and examine all of it with critical thinking.
Your position does not allow for right and wrong. I have seen you on other topics be quite vocal about right and wrong, even from a religious perspective.
4th graders cant argue about the utility of moving indigenous people off the land to pave the way for the "improvements" brought by white European expansion into the territory. But they can be "brainwashed".
Um, I assumed it didn't need to be said directly. Like, that would be the point of the exercise?
I agree that 4th graders probably can't or aren't ready for something like that, which is why I said I thought the exercise was being conducted in the wrong grade.
Sure they can but was that the point of the exercise? All we see from the article is the predictable knee-jerk reaction of some about how dare anyone try to justify what the settlers did. I think it would be very interesting to see the full evolution of the entire exercise and see how that went. I, for one, see a lot of excellent opportunity to get students to think about why people believe what they believe, concepts of right and wrong and how do societies determine what they are and other subjects as well.
It seems to me that people who probably never had opportunities in school to actually think about what they were taught were the actual brainwashed ones. You know, the sort of knee-jerk reaction we're seeing concerning all this. Instead, of exploring something, we just fall back on the honor/shame society the old world had.
Anyway, that's my opinion on it.
The "settlers" forced people who had been living on the land to move, or die, or I guess turn themselves into "white men". It was a might makes right situation. But might doesnt make right.
We dont need to teach kids that might makes right.
Sometimes in history there is a fait accompli and in the aftermath nothing can be done. But it doesnt make the winner right.
That's true, but you're assuming that is the point of the lesson. To teach kids that might makes right. Can you prove that it was? It seems to me that the second part of the exercise, to write Jackson from the perspective of the natives says it is not. Seems to me you are arguing to control the thought processes of others because you don't feel they are capable of arriving at a correct conclusion without you forcing it on them.
this is what the 9 and 10 year olds were given. I dont think its right, even if they were later asked to argue the opposite.
I don't see whatever image you are attempting to present.
Okay, but why?
We do need to teach them that every single time in the course of human history, when a society does terrible things to people, the members of that society believe they are justified.
Now, you have no idea what the follow up to this assignment was going to be. For all you know, next week's assignment is "pretend you're a Cherokee and write a letter to President Jackson explaining why you have a right to the land he intends to move you from."
yeah, fourth grade is too young for something like that. It's a good assignment for high school though.
Actually, I thought 7th might be good.
I guess for honors levels kids who have a grasp of the basic background it might be productive, but my impression is 7th graders are still at the level of learning the basic outlines of our history and wouldn't be capable of that sort of analysis.
Possibly.
I believe I was in middle school, or Junior High as we called it, when one of the most profound realizations in my life occurred to me. Prior to that, I was enamored with the German military of WWII and Nazi pageantry. To my mind, they had the coolest uniforms, the best weapons, the singleness of purpose (although I didn't realize what that purpose was) and the whole thing. All the flags and torch light ceremonies appealed to me. For me, it was all imagery combined with the idea of discipline and everyone united for a common goal.
Then, one night I was watching one of my favorite TV shows. World at War. The subject was the concentration camps. I can't describe the horror and shame and profound disappointment I felt in both my naivety and the German military. I'm not going to claim that this was the point I became a critical thinker because it wasn't. But it fundamentally changed something within me. What I didn't have was someone who could guide me through what I was feeling. Someone who could, on a basic level, help me to examine why I was where I was at, emotionally.
Now, suppose the school system in which I attended attempted something similar as what this charter school was, I believe, trying to do. Get me to see beyond what my naivety presented me and then provide a framework in which to deal with it.
I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. The point is, this happened to me in middle school. I can tell you I was definitely ready to examine this question. It was definitely time to teach me the fundamentals of critically thinking about what I assumed or took for granted.
It's a fantastic idea, provided it's followed up with the inverse assignment.
JHC, what the fuck is wrong with these asswipes.
My initial gut feeling on reading the headline and assignment question was WTF. Playing devil's advocate a bit. It's one thing for the subject to be covered, and it should be covered. There may be some utility in forcing someone to attempt to justify those actions, and to think critically about the subject though. 4th grade doesn't seem to be the age for that exercise. But, for an older crowd...To make an argument for, you really need to understand what the arguments against are. This might actually get a person put some thought into it, other than just a passing acknowledgment that the shit was wrong.
I'm 60 and while I consider myself fairly well at critical thinking, justifying the removal of Natives is still something I can't wrap my brain around
I know what you mean. I'm just a few months younger than you are and it sort of feels 'dirty' to contemplate justifying it. But we've had a lifetime of learning on which to think about things such as this. I think the idea here is to speed up the process for children, although I think they targeted too young a grade.
If this school was doing what I hope they were doing, the exercise should have had the kids trying to justify why the settlers and natives did what they did, what were their reasons and then pick them apart, critically and morally. Instead of simply presenting events as shameful acts, why were they shameful or noble? How did they come to think that way? What, realistically, could have been done differently? How does this relate to present day? Things like that. That's what I would hope the goal was.
Before they "try" to cover the removal by Jackson, they should also learn about the Georgia Compact of 1802 where Jefferson signed away GA/AL/MS/TN without any discussion with the Tribes or approval of Congress. That just tickled the shyte outta Jackson and Georgia loved it.
What's the tally, 368 USA government treaties with indigenous tribes, 366 broken by the US?
Lol.
Somehow, dailykos forgot to mention the second part of the assignment was to write a letter from the opposite point of view:
"Write a letter to President Andrew Jackson from the point of view of a Cherokee Indian. Describe the conditions of the Trail of Tears and their effects on your tribe.’"
Crazy how that happened.
You want young children to take part in a "critical thinking" exercise that asks them to justify "genocide" but you dont want them to hear about systemic racism. We get ya.
Sure John. That's an honest interpretation of "yeah, fourth grade is too young for something like that."
But I appreciate you totally avoiding the dishonesty of your source to attack me.
What a surprise ... not.
4th grade is too young for this so-called exercise. It would have been better in senior high school or college, but I find trying to justify genocide is bizarre at best but for white supremacists, it's probably not that bizarre since they have been attempting to do just that on a number of occasions.
Start with the ''Doctrine of Discovery'' and The Papal Bull "Inter Caetera," issued by Pope Alexander VI on May 4, 1493, declared the following.
I'm sure that some will say that was 500 plus years ago, but if you actually read the above quote and the Marshall Trilogy which is the basis for the Johnson v. McIntosh you'll see that it was both an excuse to take all Indian land and Indians only had a ''right of occupancy'' and to excuse this unjust and unlawful taking of Indian land. Now if in your view the Papal Bull, Inter Caetera were over 500 years old and that Johnson v. McIntosh was close to 200 years ago and ancient history take his bit of information and digest it. The RCC has NEVER rescinded the ''Doctrine of Discovery'' and Inter Caetera and the Johnson v. McIntosh is still law today and as recently as 2006 it was the basis of a legal decision.
To further enhance your knowledge you should read the SCOTUS decision on the Cherokee Nation v. Georiga and Worcester v. Georiga.
I could go on about other laws and decisions that had and have a very adverse effect on Native Americans and our rights, but familiarize yourself with the above before really stepping into deep water.
Oh, I almost forget, do you think that Indians own the land which is designated as ''Indian Reservations''?
An interesting question. One that has the same answer as, I believe, do I own the land my deed says I do? The answer to both is, no. The land belongs to the entity with the most firepower.
I agree that, in my opinion, 4th grade is too young. I think 7th grade would be best. Going from grade school to middle school feels like a sort of rite of passage, as if you know you're no longer really "a kid" anymore. At least that's how I remember it.
Further, I think it is a good age to start teaching the critical thought process. I think this exercise, assuming it is done right, could go a long way to begin to teach children how to question their assumptions. Were it me, the way I'd do it is teach about the background of the colonists. Where did they come from? What sorts of things did they believe? What was their world view? The same with the natives. Then I'd ask them to justify each position with those considerations in mind. The culmination of the exercise would be to examine what they came up with in both a historical and moral light, the central theme being why basing one's moral actions on cultural norms isn't the best idea. That is, who says those norms are actually moral? That would be what I hope the exercise would be for.
As for finding trying to justify genocide as bizarre misses what I hope the point of the exercise was, since I doubt the intent was actually to justify events. Rather, I think, or at least hope, the intent was to get the children to understand the mindset of the settlers in order to better understand what was wrong with such thinking. To simply react to such an exercise as horrible because they are trying to get children to understand the mindset is simply an emotional response, in my opinion. How much better if I child understands not simply that it was wrong, but why it was wrong, what thinking led them to be wrong, what is right and why is it right, etc, etc.
In my way of thinking, it wasn't 500 plus years ago, it's every moment of human existence. It's the same thing all of humanity has done and continues to do. I think you make a mistake in singling out NA's as some sort of exception that deserves special attention. The same thing with BLM or any other race centric cause. The most important question isn't what does it mean to be white, NA, black, Russian, Gay or any of that sort of thing. The only question that matters is, what does it mean to be a real human being? My belief is that we were created to bear God's image. Imagine if we all believed that and strove to bear His image? To love Him and to love each other? What relevance would race or culture have then? Every person would be equally valued.
LOL.
Again, why? Because it doesn't fall in line with your narrative that all white people only do things for racist reasons, even if they don't know they're doing it?
This is wishful thinking.
We don't really know what the thinking of the teachers was, but the fact is they asked 4th graders to justify forcing the Indians off their land. This is an assignment 4th graders would need help with, thus bringing older siblings or parents into it. Obviously many people think this was wrong, otherwise it wouldnt be national news.
I believe, do I own the land my deed says I do? The answer to both is, no. The land belongs to the entity with the most firepower.
No better example could be found in Ireland, where in the 17th century the same parcel of land could be claimed by the original Gaelic owner, the olde English family that displaced him and the Cromwellian soldier who replaced the olde English. Money and influence settled the issues following the Stuart restoration. Title is as only as good as one's right to enforce it.
Which, in this forum, seems to be agreed upon that this was too early to present such a subject.
Well, I'd hardly call that a bad thing, in spite of the fact it was still probably too young to address. One of the major problems with education in this country, in my opinion, is that the family leaves education up to the school system.
Which is evidence of nothing other than many people feel this is wrong and, possibly, the bias of MSM uses things like this to push an agenda. It doesn't actually present an argument as to why it is wrong beyond an emotional knee-jerk reaction.
In case you missed the article's subject matter it was Native Americans. What I pointed out was genocide or if you prefer, ''Ethnic Cleansing'' and the involvement of the RCC and most other Christian religions in participating in the ''Ethnic Cleansing'' and the US government's involvement for centuries.
The answer to the question re land is NO, we do not own the land. The US government holds it in trust.
Which is what I said, also.
I did not miss it. My point was that focusing on this as if it were unique to NA's leads to a false understanding of reality. You might think that what happened to NA's was inhumane but this is completely false. It was very humane.
The word 'inhumane' suggests treatment other than what is ordinary moral treatment of another human being but this is false. The ordinary treatment of one group of humans by other groups of humans is most often bad. That's very human, not inhuman. All one has to do is look at the blood soaked history of human interaction. 'Inhumane' treatment of others is very human, thus making the term an oxymoron.
I don't deny for a second that your people got the dirty end of the stick, no question. My point is, hey, that's humanity. Including your people. People in the Americas were getting the dirty end of the stick long before we ever got here. That's humane. That's the way we all are.
Here's what would really be inhumane. If every one of us treated the other person as if God thought that person was the most important person ever. That would be inhumane. Everything else is actually what humans do and, therefore, humane.
You are making excuses for genocide/ethnic cleansing and the participation of the Christian religions and the US government, a pretty sad commentary on your part but not unexpected.
-and-
Are we working off the same English language?:
The word inhumane has long since diverged from inhuman:
I find it sad you think that is my purpose.
I wondered when you'd chime in. Yes, we are working off the same language. Apparently, you wish to stop at mere dictionary definitions without critical thought as to whether the definition is justified. I do not believe it is. The definition of inhumane that you provide natrually suggests that the default position of 'humane' means it is the natural setting of humanity. The definition of 'humane' is having or showing compassion or benevolence. This is not the default setting for the human condition, with the possible exception of those within one's accepted group. Humane, then, should logically define the default setting for human reaction to others. To define it otherwise is to say what we'd like to be, not what history has shown that we are. Brutality and injustice to those outside our group is very human, therefore humane. The dictionary describes it as if compassion and mercy were the default settings of the human condition when they are not. In other words, the dictionary definition doesn't reflect reality.
Drakk,
Then what was your purpose? I have to say, I don't get it.
Um, not according to what you posted. What you posted says they are the same thing.
No, Drakk, this is not about critical thinking. It is very simple: changing the meaning of an English word to suit your purposes.
The definition simply defines the usage semantics (meaning) of the word. It is not philosophical, it is basic usage semantics. The fidelity of a word to one's particular philosophical view of reality does not give one license to change its meaning. Sorry, above your pay grade.
So what? You disagree with the established semantics so you just substitute your own?
And, again, to whatever degree that is true, it is irrelevant. You think you can just change the meaning of the word when you disagree with its fidelity to reality as you see it. That is such a strange way to operate. Imagine if everyone who disagreed with the correctness of dictionary usage semantics for a word decided to substitute their own meaning.
Wow. What a strange way to read Oxford commentary. Just look up inhuman and you will see usage 1 correlating with inhumane. Usage 2 of inhuman does not and focuses on 'not human' vs. 'not cruel'.
Drakkonis, I'm about over members making up their own definitions of words in sad attempts to bolster their posits.
Please link an online dictionary which reflects the bastardization of the definition of 'inhumane' in your comment or admit that it is an intentional fabrication, used in a sickening attempt to excuse genocide.
No need to 'imagine' it, we see it here every day. When the practice is called out, it's scoffed as 'parsing', as if analyzing the meaning of a posted sentence isn't intrinsic to participating in this forum.
The MO of all too many members here is to 'Speak their mind' by insisting others accept an 'alternative' form of the English language, which can only be translated and fully understood by them. Cogency and comity be damned.
Jesus H. Christ. How anybody can type those words is beyond me.
moral relativism
It seems to be the justification of genocide with "Eh, it happens."
Definition of humane adjective from the Oxford Advanced American Dictionary
humane
adjective
showing kindness toward people and animals by making sure that they do not suffer more than is necessary
opposite inhumane
NA's were brutally murdered. They were not taken to vets to be humanely put down. Maybe he should research The Trial Of Tears and find out just how "humane" it was. His comment was not only ignorant, but devoid of any common sense what so ever.
Well gee Drakk, isn't your dismissal equally appropriate for all the things you decry as differing from 'God's view of what morality consist of'?
And utterly lacking empathy.
Not at all surprising when you consider what [deleted] it would take to write that.
Thing is (having known Drakk for many years) I am confident Drakk is not trying to argue that the cruel treatment of NAs, et. al. was right (morally, ethically, etc.). Rather, I suspect he was making a deeply religious-based point that human beings, by our very nature, are cruel.
I do not agree with that assessment of human nature, but if Drakk truly believes that human beings are inherently cruel then (per Drakk) if we were to act counter to our nature (inhuman) we would actually be caring.
This is a very bizarre and IMO catastrophically poorly articulated argument that involves changing the meaning of well-established words. If I were Drakk I would recognize that his analysis of the fidelity of the words 'humane/inhumane/human/inhuman' to reality should have been an entirely separate point and then clearly state his opinion that of course NAs, et. al. were cruelly treated and that such treatment was unqualified wrong.
He said what he said, TG. If he is so ignorant as to write those words then he has to live with the backlash. I really don't give a damn about his religious beliefs, since IMO it is nothing more than a way to cover up the bigotry. The history of Christian religions and NA's is replete with their looking at us as savages to be converted if not to be enslaved or killed. I see little difference in his comment than in the original words of the Papal Bull, "Inter Caetera."
What he wrote was, in my estimation, catastrophically poorly articulated.
Hopefully those words are not what Drakk truly believes, but it will be up to Drakk to set the record straight.
Yes the backlash is justified because we cannot use such extreme language and then try to justify the language with semantic games. The language itself is harmful.
Then IMHO, it would be logical to conclude that his God's creation is fatally flawed in its very nature and no amount of bible reading/preaching has or will change that. Instead of holding over 'bad seed' through the flood, maybe 'he' should have started from scratch. Humanity, 2.0.
If the truth is taunting then so be it.
I think Drakk believes human beings are profoundly flawed compared to his vision of God but that with much work we can improve.
And of course we are flawed but I personally do not have such a dark view of human nature. I think most human beings have empathy and care for others but of course we all have our dark sides (situation dependent). I reject the notion that human beings as a whole are naturally cruel.
Well the bible based timeline is 6000+ years of 'working' on it.
I agree. None of us are perfect yet thankfully, modernity has encouraged an evolution that doesn't excuse the abhorrent actions of the past while striving to ensure they never happen again.
Oh, for goodness sake. It isn't about changing the meaning of a definition. It is pointing out the definition misrepresents humanity. Humane suggests the natural setting on humans is to show compassion or benevolence and that actions to the contrary are inhumane. History has shown that the usual progression of events when one group has what another group wants what transpires isn't very often the dictionary definition of humane. The Holocaust was a very human thing to do because something like it has happened so often before and after it. War, murder, rape, hate, stealing, embezzlement, untruthfulness, slavery in various forms, unfaithfulness, slander, indifference, gossip... all very human. So what sense does it make to define humane by a standard we so seldom achieve and so poorly describes us?
So, when I say the settlers acted 'humanely' I'm using the word as it should mean, not by definition but by example of human actions. What humans typically do to each other all the time rather than what we wished we did (kindness and benevolence). After all, if it truly is inhumane, why does man do inhumane things so often? Like every single day, even with those we love? I'm not trying to redefine the word. I'm trying to make a point about our nature and using the word as an incongruity. Figure it out. And not just you, TiG. All of you.
All of what I'm saying here is a small point in the larger one. What happened to the NA or slavery in the south were genuinely bad and evil things but they are hardly unique. Not by a long shot. It's just the same old stuff man has done since recorded history. And somehow the solution is to continue to separate ourselves according to race or some other identifier and get what we want for OUR group regardless of what it means for every other group based on what happened in the past. We are intentionally allowing ourselves to be herded into groups for the purpose of believing we're somehow different from each other and we need to fight for what's ours. For the sake of what is true and good, how on earth is that ever going to work?
Imagine a congress of people made up of a representative from every race, culture or ideology you wish to include. The purpose of this congress is to get humanity off the bloody historical path we've trod since the beginning. A fine idea but, all these people are human beings, with all that implies. What do you think will happen? What do you think the result would be? We already know because we can see how useless the UN is. Why is it useless? Because no one there, or the countries that send representatives, don't care about the lofty goals for which the UN was created. They care about what they can manipulate out of everyone else for their own concerns. As the Talking Heads would say. "same as it ever was."
TiG is mostly right, except this isn't a deeply religious-based point. It's freaking bloody empirically obvious from simply watching what people do. Everything from Dachau to a smoker flicking his cigarette butt out the car window and onto the street or every judgmental thought they have of the person they see in the supermarket. Just look at what all of you are saying about me. If what I am saying seems confusing to you, why not do what Perrie did and ask a question? Nope. You do what is eminently human. Disparage and cast condemnation on me rather than simply discourse, all because you don't like what I'm saying.
(And, Perrie, I tried to respond to you but this got locked before I could post. Sorry. Thanks for asking a question rather than putting me down)
Lastly, Kavika. If you think I was literally saying what happened to your ancestors was the dictionary definition of humane, then I can only assume you do so because you want to.
Where did you come up with that?
Of course, I will rely on the dictionary definition of humane, there is no reason I wouldn't since it's the definition that everyone uses. If you choose to invent your own meaning for a word that isn't my problem or anyone else's but yours.
Hopefully you understand that the word 'humane' is an adjective. An adjective is...
That is how the Oxford Dictionary, perhaps the most authoritative dictionary in the world, defines humane.
Do you honestly see me as trying to reinvent the meaning of the word or, conversely, what I believe I am doing? Pointing out the incongruity of the meaning to what humans naturally do all the time? It seems rather obvious to me that humane is not what humans are but, rather, an ideal humans hope to achieve.
My point is if we defined 'humane' by what humans actually do, then what happened to your people, and countless other people throughout history would be considered 'humane' rather than a dictionary definition we seldom achieve.
Whether or not you believe it, I'm not actually trying to redefine the word. Rather, I am attempting to convince all of you that 'humane' and 'inhumane' are ideals and not actual descriptions of the human condition. I am trying to separate the ideal from what is reality. If you look at my post 10.1.35 you will hopefully understand what I mean. "Humane" is an adjective used to describe or modify the word 'human'. To take a literal meaning of the word 'humane' we are stating that humans are, by nature, kind and compassionate. After all, that is the function of an adjective.
Put another way, the adjectives 'humane' and 'inhumane' assume a default setting for what it means to be human. That is, what is humane and inhumane assumes that the baseline behavior of humanity is a kind and benevolent being. How true do you think that is, given the history of humanity?
Okay, John. Thanks for your contribution.
You can define words any way you want, but people are not necessarily going to listen to you.
You are using the word 'inhumane' with your definition, not the dictionary definition. That, Drakk, is changing the defined meaning of the word. There just is no arguing that. Do not try to translate your mistakes into a failure on my part.
Yes I know. You are using the word as you think it should mean regardless of the meaning expressed by the actual dictionary definition. That is what I have been stating.
Okay, believe what you want to. From my perspective I'm not using the word as I think it should mean. I'm arguing the incongruity between what the word means and human action. But feel free to believe I'm simply trying to redefine a word. It isn't as if I can stop you.
And you can define my argument to be whatever you what it to be, but it doesn't mean that's my argument.
You just stated this yourself. Good grief man, you stated:
I am not believing what I want, I am reading your words directly. Read what you wrote ⇡. I stated what you just stated yet you pretend I am misrepresenting you.
Do you disagree with this?: You are using the word as you believe it should mean rather than use it as it actually is defined to mean.
Because you are. Why is it that when I say the incongruity of the dictionary definition of 'humane' and 'inhumane' compared to what humans actually do is my point you don't believe me? My point isn't to redefine the words. My point is that what happened to Kavika's people is a very human thing to have happened. To say it was inhumane is a lie, as it suggests that it is contrary to what is human nature. What happened to them, and countless others throughout history, is exceedingly human. To say it was inhumane is to state that it wasn't a human thing to do.
Humane and inhumane are adjectives, which means they are intended to describe attributes of the noun to which they refer. But that isn't how these words are used. They do not describe an attribute of human nature. They describe a value to which we deceive ourselves concerning our nature. Or, to put it positively, it describes what we wish we were but are not. Not as a whole, anyway. This is why I stated what happened to Kavika's people was humane. It dispenses with the sugar-coated fantasy we like to believe about ourselves and looks at the reality of what we actually do.
To state that what happened to Kavika's people was inhumane by the dictionary definition goes without saying. It's also disconnected from actual reality concerning human nature. That is, those words don't actually do what adjectives are supposed to do. That is, describe an actual attribute of the noun to which it refers. This, and not trying to redefine words, is my purpose for stating what I did. To not look at what people did as much as who people really are.
Kavika is just one example of a champion for a particular cause. There are millions of Kavika's out there, each with their own cause, like an auditorium full of people grouped into a hundred different factions, each doing whatever they feel necessary to attain their goal and justifying their methods on the 'rightness' of their cause. That is human, not inhumane, if we are speaking literally rather than the notional way we use the words.
I believe what my point to be as vital if we are ever going to actually move forward morally as a species. We have to understand who we are and what is our nature. It needs to be understood that when we say what happened to Kavika's people was inhumane, we are stating that it was wrong but not contrary to human nature. In reality, it was a perfectly human thing to do and Kavika's people are just as guilty of it as any other group. Just look at the horrors of mourning wars, for instance, never mind anything as obvious as what the Aztecs did.
So, one last time. My point isn't insisting we redefine words. My point is insisting we actually think about the incongruity of the words with what humans actually are and do. Those words refer to a state of being that doesn't actually describe the human condition. This is my point.
Now, believe what you want. I can't make my position any clearer than this, and so, I am done with this.
Then based on your prior comments, none of us qualifies as human because it is our nature to be inhumane and it has been so, unchanging, since the beginning of time.
I have routinely accepted that as your position. Read!:
But you stated more than that! If you do not realize this then you likely are the only one on this thread to not see it.
You have argued that human beings do not naturally act in a humane fashion. Not once have I suggested that you have stated otherwise. You go on to say that because of this —your viewpoint— it is actually humane for human beings to be cruel to one another and that if we were caring we would actually be inhumane.
I really do not see what you hope to accomplish by denying the obvious. You should acknowledge how your words could easily connote the wrong meaning and correct them.
I have never claimed your point was to insist we redefine words. I stated that you are redefining words. Very different.
And I was suggesting to the others that this is most likely your viewpoint in spite of your catastrophically horrible choice to use the word inhumane in sentences and then argue that it means the opposite of what Oxford, etc. states.
You stepped in a pile of shit of your own making. I tried to offer to the others the very good possibility that you do not really mean what your words conveyed because knowing you for years I would be shocked if you actually held the position your words suggested.
For some reason, instead of using that as an opportunity for you to clear the air, you chose instead to continue this futile attempt to justify your decision to use words like inhumane with the exact opposite meaning than what is found in the English dictionaries.
To what end?
Why not just stop with this?:
Instead of simply clearing the air, why were you compelled to then pretend that I am in some way being unfair to you? Why claim that I cannot or will not understand what you wrote?
An interesting statement, Dulay. One that actually reflects Christian thinking on the subject. We, as humans, tend to think of ourselves as basically good people. The problem is, good according to what standard? Generally, we tend to define that ourselves and, so, are not surprised that, although we know we sometimes fail, we mostly meet our own standards. After all, there aren't many people who consciously decide to purposefully pursue evil as they understand it.
But what if good and evil were defined external to humanity? That is, something other than human establishes what is good and evil? What if doing good was not simply doing the right thing but doing it with the right motives? If that were reality, don't you think it might go a long way toward explaining why human history has been so full of suffering? Meaning, the human trait of deciding what is right or wrong rather than adhering to some standard established by something greater than ourselves?
So, as far as qualifying as 'human', wouldn't that depend on what we were intended to be, if we were intended at all? If not, that is, if we weren't intended to be something specific, then does not the question become meaningless, as well as human behavior? What any particular group did to another group would simply be a fact, not something that could be described in moral terms, as there is no intended purpose to humanity.
THERE IS NO STANDARD —ESTABLISHED BY SOMETHING GREATER THAN OURSELVES— AVAILABLE TO US.
That is key to the problem. Speaking of a standard that nobody can consult is pointless. Human beings decide what is right or wrong because we only have ourselves (our cultures) to work with. We decide morality based upon experiences (trial and error). The morality that is in effect (i.e. subjective morality) is an emergent property of societal evolution.
There is no point to you continuing to speak of a morality outside of human beings until you can deliver these objectively true rules (the aforementioned standard) of right vs. wrong.
What would be the point in trying to convince you? It isn't something you would consider objectively determinable. You can't put morality in a petri dish and look at its DNA, which is pretty much the only thing you'd accept. I could state that no society ever has considered kidnapping a child, raping and torturing it before killing it to be a moral or even an indifferent act. Every society ever has considered it to be immoral. You would not consider this as evidence for an objective morality. What you mean is, first establish, objectively, the entity that establishes what is moral first, then look at what is moral.
Of course, you only apply such standards to this specific thing. You don't for anything else. Take Dark Matter for instance. We can't provide evidence of Dark Matter itself, yet you are willing to accept it based on indirect evidence. Why, though? Evidence shows that every society ever has commonly accepted the morality or immorality of certain things, yet you reject this as evidence that morality is a specific, unalterable thing in the manner that gravity is a specific, unalterable thing.
I can't help myself. I detest Gordy's "that's nice, prove it" meme. But this begs it. so, that's nice, prove it!
You would be supporting your argument, not trying to convince me.
Every society has certain acts that all would agree are wrong; at least that is what one would expect. It is not expected that societies would evolve notions of right vs. wrong that do not overlap in some (at least minor) way. That would be verrrry odd.
And yes, this intersection is not evidence of objective morality. It is simply overlap that one would expect given we are all homo sapiens. To have evidence of objective morality we would need evidence of a source of this objective morality and that the source acted to impose these objectively moral rules.
We have no evidence of any of this. So while the intersection of all societal moralities might be objective morality, we have nothing that even hints that it IS.
Dark matter, Drakk, is the name that scientists chose for the unexplained phenomenon of what appears to be gravitational attraction in the universe. It is simply a placeholder for "we observe this phenomenon indirectly but we do not know what it is".
So I accept the label 'dark matter' (and 'dark energy') as mere labels for unexplained phenomena. Science gave a name to observations that it cannot explain. The label I would give to common moral rules is 'common moral rules'. I would not leap to the conclusion that this is 'objective morality'. Stay close to what is known and do not infer simply because of a desired end.
Yup, let's call these 'commonly accepted moral rules'. Works for me. Just like calling the unexplained phenomena of additional energy in the universe driving the expansion 'dark energy'. Just a non-presumptive label that correlates with what we know.
Thanks for proving my point.
In all of recorded history, we have never encountered such a standard. Therefore, for all practical purposes, there is no standard available to us.
The intersection of all societal moral rules is just that. To be your standard we would all need to know that this intersection was a result of an objective sentient authority.
That is my working theory. The theory is falsifiable. All you need do is deliver the standard by this authority and my theory falls apart.
Okay, Drakk, I can appreciate that you cannot offer a thoughtful, honest, factual rebuttal.
But don't play that stupid 'proved my point' game with me. I doubt anyone reading this is nodding their head: 'yeah, TiG just proved Drakk's point'.
Really?
So, there were societies where kidnapping, raping, torturing and killing a child was considered moral? Where lying was considered moral? Where keeping one's word is not moral?
This constitutes empirical evidence, TiG. The fact that every single human being, save those who have provable insanity, believes and lives their lives according to the concept that morality exists, even if they get it wrong, is evidence that a definable morality exists. Human existence revolves around the concept of morality, TiG, yet you wish to claim it is all an illusion? That it is some mere mechanism of evolution designed to make individuals more successful in impregnating the female, thereby propagating the species and, by extension, evolution? What else can you be arguing? That's all your materialist view of reality allows. You don't really love your wife and children. It's just a chemical reaction evolution imposes on you for the purpose of evolution.
I don't know how many times I've heard you say we should go where the truth leads us, but you fail to do so yourself. Science works because every single thing in existence operates according to unbreakable laws, with one exception. And because of that exception, you claim morality isn't a real, definable and empirical thing. Rather than believe what the universe is telling you, you prefer to believe that because humans suck at defining morality means there is no objective morality. The question then becomes, why, in all the laws that govern our universe, is morality the exception? Well? Why?
Why are you asking this question? What causes you to think that I do not recognize an intersection of societal moral rules? Drakk, don't invent positions for me.
What?? Again, you invent a position for me.
I did speak of societal evolution. How you got to impregnating females is quite a leap.
Oh, well good question. Thanks for asking. Here is what I am arguing:
Every society has rules for what it considers right and wrong. Those rules are a result of societal evolution — societies (as they evolve) learn from their experiences and adjust the rules for what is considered to be right vs. wrong. This is something for which we have an abundance of evidence.
Also, there are certain rules that one would expect are considered true in every human society. One such rule is that raping and killing little girls is wrong. It would be surprising if common rules like that did NOT exist given we are all homo sapiens.
Well Drakk, if you invent arguments for me and then criticize me for the arguments you invented, you might as well do that in private.
After all, if you are going to simply invent arguments for me and put words in my mouth why bother involving me at all?
This is just ridiculous. You say I'm inventing your argument and then confirm by your own words I'm not inventing it. Have a nice night, TiG.
What is ridiculous is your game of theatrics. It is pathetic actually.
You blatantly invent arguments and positions for me that anyone can see I did not make. Then when I call you out on it you claim that your invention is what I wrote.
This is my position:
Every society has rules for what it considers right and wrong. Those rules are a result of societal evolution — societies (as they evolve) learn from their experiences and adjust the rules for what is considered to be right vs. wrong. This is something for which we have an abundance of evidence.
Also, there are certain rules that one would expect are considered true in every human society. One such rule is that raping and killing little girls is wrong. It would be surprising if common rules like that did NOT exist given we are all homo sapiens.
No illusion. Commonality among societies do exist. No reference to biological evolution or reproduction ... just societal evolution. And, finally, all based on seemingly undeniable evidence.
Why, TiG? Why would we expect them to be common and true for every society? Why, why why?
You are saying nothing here. Absolutely nothing. You are simply stating that objectively moral behaviors are common among all groups and times and doing noting with it except stating the obvious. You aren't suggesting any conclusion. The undeniable evidence says that there is objective morality. That no society ever has presented otherwise is evidence of that. How and who established it? It's right there in your face and yet you deny it. You simply put it down to societal evolution, even though that is easily shown to be utter bullshit. It didn't evolve. No society thought it was moral to kidnap, torture, rape and kill a child. The immorality of it didn't evolve from some other morality. It has always been considered immoral everywhere and everywhen.
This article has been derailed.
Because it is more likely that there be overlap (set intersection) than to have every society be entirely distinct in terms or right vs. wrong. No intersection would be extraordinary.
For example, biologically most of us are instinctively driven to protect children (especially our own). Thus one would expect that every society would have rules against gratuitously raping and killing children.
Also, every society likely recognizes the damage that occurs from theft / vandalism. Thus they would likely all consider theft / vandalism to be wrong (vs. right).
This seems very obvious to me. Why is this not obvious to you?
Only if you think morality has nothing to do with the article.
Because it isn't an evolutionary issue. It's a moral one. It isn't a biological issue, it's a spiritual issue. How is it you don't understand that? You are a materialist, I am not. Try to figure out what that means.
No, I am saying (in agreement with you) that a subset of moral rules are indeed common among all societies. I do not call this objective morality.
This was your question, what am I supposed to do with it other than opine (as I did)?
How then do you define objective morality? Then show me where it exists. You surely are not going to tell me that objective morality ≡ morality that is common among all societies. Are you?
You think that the moral rules of societies have nothing to do with evolution? For example, we used to consider slavery moral and now we do not. That is an example of societal evolution of morality.
You think that moral rules have nothing to do with biological motivators such as maternal instinct?
You are denying the obvious again. And you ignored my actual answer:
So, then. Slavery was not immoral until we thought it was, meaning it could be moral again if we think it so? The only other thing you could mean is our understanding of what is moral evolves, not what is actually moral. If it is the second, why are you arguing with me?
Nope. I'm promoting the obvious. Your view would be more supportable if what overlapped were more random and not universal but it's not. It's obvious that a society or culture that did not promote keeping one's word, telling the truth or being faithful in matters isn't going to long survive. Such things aren't a matter of opinion. One might suggest North Korea as an example that contradicts this but that would be false. The biggest factor in the continued existence of North Korea is the patronage of China. Were it not for that, NK would have fallen long ago. More, it serves as an example of trying to live without an objective morality.
An interesting statement Drakk, since it utterly turns the Christian concept of grace on its head. Unless of course you are prepared to argue that your God would find favor in being inhumane.
Societies, NOT individuals, have always set the standard.
I disagree, all too many do just that.
I presume that you would admit that throughout human history, there is documented evidence of belief in 'higher beings' in some shape or form. Yet, you've argued ad nauseam that history also proves that it is human nature to be 'inhumane' [evil]. So based on your scenario, 'something other than human' establishing what is good and evil has had little effect on human nature.
In my experience, that isn't true. I have seen very young children 'doing the right thing' for no other motive than inherent empathy. I see no need for an introspective evaluation whether it was for the 'right motive'.
Yet it isn't a reality Drakk. Your own argument, that humans are by nature inhumane, goes a long way in explaining why our history is so 'full of suffering', don't you think?
Based on your comments, it looks to me like this 'something greater than ourselves' is setting up humans to fail. After all, you insist that humans are by nature 'inhumane' and therefore by nature incapable of doing right, no matter the motive.
Based on YOUR standards, yes. Since I don't accept your standards, not so much.
No. We are pack animals Drakk. Throughout human history, we have lived in mutually beneficial groups. It is a natural state for our species, as it is with a long list of other animals. What behavior is or isn't acceptable [good/evil] within that group depends on a plethora of external and internal factors.
You seem to think that morality [good/evil] is a purely human trait. You're wrong.
highly documented in the xtian manual...
Why are you intentionally ignoring that TiG said 'the societal evolution of morality'?
BTFW Drakk, based on the standard defined by this 'other than human' entity you have put forward is just honky dory with slavery. If, as you seem to be positing, humans could have eliminated much of our historical suffering by following that standard, slavery would still be viewed as perfectly moral.
The FACT that the overwhelming majority of the humans on the planet have agreed that slavery IS immoral in and of itself proves that there is indeed a 'societal evolution of morality'. It certainly isn't based on an evolution of the standards set by an 'other than human' entity. While the majority of those same humans will self-identify as religious, we as a society have agreed to a standard HIGHER than that set by your 'other than human' entity.
BTW, why not just spit it out and say God?
Well then, the US is fucked, isn't it Drakk? History proves that societies AND cultures have thrived under leaders full of liars and treaty breakers.
It's utterly unfounded and historically inaccurate.
This is an inordinate amount of baby killing and womb rendering going on in a text that many insist is 'pro-life' isn't there?
[deleted, off topic meta]
Aside from the fact this question makes no sense in light of my question, which you quote, I am not ignoring TiG's claim. I am pointing out the obvious flaw in his reasoning. For instance, there is a rather large difference between...
and...
In the first, what is moral is determined by society. In the second, morality is not determined by society but, rather, recognized as something outside society. Hence, my question to TiG.
If the morality of slavery is simply a function of societal evolution, i.e. slavery is wrong simply because a society has come to believe it is, it necessarily means that if a society evolves to believe slavery is moral is just as possible. This would necessarily be so because there's no actual foundation for morality in such a case, since it simply rests on what a given society believes at any particular time.
I invite you, Dulay, to try to make that argument. That slavery is only wrong because we as a society think it is, rather than it being wrong regardless of what we think of it.
While I do agree that societies evolve, it can't be logically argued that what is moral evolves with it. That isn't to say I don't recognize that what a given society thinks is moral doesn't evolve over time. It does. But that isn't the same as saying what is moral actually evolves.
No, actually, it doesn't and you contradict yourself in a single sentence. You state that slavery is wrong in and of itself, which I take to mean it doesn't matter what a society thinks of it, it's immoral regardless. But in the same sentence you say the immorality of it rests on that very thing. Societal evolution. Pick a side, Dulay. Slavery is either wrong because it's wrong or it's only wrong because we think it is. The only rational choice is not that what is moral has evolved but, rather, our understanding of what is moral has evolved.
In defense of my view, I present to you human history and current events.
Because I don't need to in order to argue my point. While I do believe God is the source of morality, I should be able to argue my case by simply looking at the evidence and logical reasoning. I understand your desire for me to simply say "because God said so". Were I to do so it would make it much easier for you to simply abandon logic and reason and, instead, just attack my position as unfounded faith. Not going to happen.
I wondered if anyone would try this argument. Not surprised it was you.
First off, what a particular government does isn't the point. The point was what a society does or believes as a whole. In a society where the average Joe or Josephine believes not keeping one's word, telling the truth or being faithful are moral imperatives will not long survive. And, concerning governments who believe they are not, history has shown that they eventually fall.
And ultimately that is the disagreement. I recognize societal morality (among others) as morality that is an emergent property of evolving societies. You reject that and insist that only morality as you define the word can exist.
You reject the authoritative meaning of the word morality and instead insist that morality is singular (only objective morality exists ... societal morality is deemed impossible). Further, you define morality such that it is necessarily sourced from a supreme sentient entity (which requires then that said entity actually exists).
You impose your own special restrictions on an English word and claim that the standard English meaning of the word is wrong.
Note the meaning of the word ' morality ': (per Oxford )
There is nothing in this definition that states a specific source of these principles which distinguish right from wrong. Nowhere does this state that morality is singular (one and only one morality can exist). Thus you are incorrect to say that I am wrong to note the existence of societal morality (morality that is an emergent property of a society / culture).
Note the next usage of ' morality ':
So there it is in Oxford, the usage semantics for morality exactly as I have used the word. A meaning that we all evidence in reality. Yet you still inexplicably merely claim I am wrong.
In short, you impose your own restrictions on the meaning of the English word ' morality ' and claim that the authoritative sources for English word usage semantics (dictionaries such as Oxford) are wrong and that my consistency with Oxford, et. al. is wrong.
Not only is your argument ridiculous ( requires you to impose your own special restriction on an English word ), it is arrogant.
What is the authority to which you refer? A dictionary?
Conversely, there's nothing in it that states there isn't a specific source. The same goes for your second example.
This is incorrect. Your usage of the word indicates morality is not a thing in and of itself but, rather, an emergent property of society. The Oxford definition of morality doesn't support this definition. The Oxford definition simply defines a concept about a word, specifically, morality, not where it comes from.
Again, incorrect. You conflate what is moral and from where it comes from with the definition of morality. The only thing the Oxford definition does is identify what the word 'morality' is referring to. It doesn't identify what is moral or from where it comes. For your accusation to be true..
Would necessarily have to read...
It doesn't, so the basis of your argument fails.
Again, incorrect. As already pointed out, you aren't using the word according to definition but, rather, one you attempt to impose, presumably because the word 'society' appears in it. You are trying to force an interpretation that the context of the dictionary definition does not support.
As far as your claim I am 'inexplicably' claiming you are wrong I can only assume you are choosing to ignore everything I've said on the subject. Since you are so into definitions, the dictionary definition of inexplicable is...
Since, from the beginning, I've explained my position, it would seem you either don't understand the word or you are simply pretending my position isn't understandable, whether or not you agree with it.
Once again, incorrect. The subject is, is morality a thing in itself or is it merely determined by a given society. My position is that for morality to be a real thing, it has to be a thing in and of itself and not something determined by the whims of a society. What, exactly, is ridiculous about that? Further, this point of view doesn't restrict the definition of morality since the definition doesn't actually address the question to begin with. The definition simply identifies the word as talking about the concept of right and wrong. It doesn't define what is right or wrong or where the determination of such comes from.
Perhaps you think my position is ridiculous because you feel it doesn't reflect the reality of how societies deal with what is moral. For instance, one society might think it perfectly moral to kill one's daughter for an imagined dishonor to the family whereas another would find that immoral. But what critical thinker is going to accept that as justification that societies determine what is and isn't moral? Any critical thinker would simply point out that this can be explained by the flaws in human nature. Further, to say both societies are right would mean there really isn't a thing we can call moral but, rather, simply what any individual wants morality to be.
The most damning thing to your argument, however, is that even if someone says morality is determined by society, and therefore relative, no one acts as if it is. And, as we all know, what a person does is more indicative of what a person believes than what a person says. When a person stands in front of a jury for firebombing a police car, they are going to argue on the basis of the morality of their actions, regardless of what the law says. They are, in effect, saying they can't be found guilty because what they did was a moral act. More specifically, they are appealing to a standard they feel everyone should recognize. In short, it's impossible to function with the belief that morality is subjective, since the behavior of humans says we believe it is objective.
That seems reasonable, when one is discussing definitions.
Then who or what determines what is and is not moral, in your opinion?
Okay, that's reasonable. But there are two things to consider within the context of this discussion. First, is TiG's argument actually supported by the definition and, second, even if it were (which it isn't), how reliable a source would you find humanity to be in defining something like morality? Point being, even if the definition supported TiG's view, do you think that words printed in a dictionary actually determine what the reality is concerning morality?
Of course, my view is that the dictionary definition doesn't support TiG's view. All the dictionary does is identify the concept being talked about. It doesn't define what is moral or whence it comes.
I'm sure you already know what my answer is concerning that. But, to my mind, such a question puts the cart before the horse. What would be the point in stating where morality comes from if we haven't first established whether or not morality is objective or subjective?
English dictionaries are the authorities for the meaning of English words. Drakkonis on NewsTalkers does not have the authority to deem the accepted definition of the word 'morality' to be wrong.
That is your argument? There is nothing in the definition that states that morality is not a derivative of the Star Wars 'force' either. Irrelevant!
Dictionary definitions are based on defining characteristics. If morality were of a single source that would be a defining characteristic. Kind of an important thing to leave out.
In short, who do you think you are fooling with this nonsense?
Okay, forget the source. Even though we all know that societal morality necessarily comes from society ... let's ignore the obvious and be super technical. No source. Okay? Your objection is eliminated. Now what I have described as societal morality (sans obvious source) directly correlates with "morality ☞ A particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society .".
And note the implicit lack of singularity. Unless you think there is only one society or one person on the planet. (You will ignore this too.)
And in so doing you demand a single morality and a single source and thus redefine the word 'morality'.
We are talking about the meaning of the word. I have repeatedly asked you to deliver the actual singular morality that you insist is the only possible morality and you have failed to do so every time. So since you cannot deliver the morality you describe, all we have left is your attempt to redefine the meaning of the word 'morality'.
A critical thinker who is properly using the word 'morality' per the English language and who observes that societies do indeed have differing moralities. And the fact that societies are very inconsistent in their subjective moralities is indeed based on the fact that human beings are flawed. Does not change the fact that these subjective moralities do exist. After all, the evidence is rather overwhelming.
Who says that both are right? I did not. Right or wrong is limited to the societies in question (ergo subjective). A society may deem it right to own slaves. To them it is right, but that does not mean another society might not deem it wrong. This should be extremely obvious.
Damning?? That does not even harm my argument (much less be damning). My argument is that societies evolve their own subjective moralities. The fact that they act as though they hold truth (they think they are right) does not harm my argument in any way.
Super summary:
You define morality as a single thing resulting from a single authoritative source.
The word 'morality' —per the English language— is not limited to being a singleton (only one possible morality) and does not require that it come from a single source.
You are attempting to redefine the word 'morality' by imposing singleton and single source restrictions.
You reply to me all the time Drakk. Why post bullshit?
You haven't a fucking clue what you're talking about Drakk.
The ONLY targets I want to destroy are misinformation and obtuse posits. Decide for yourself which your comments qualify under.
BTFW, why devolve to personal comments?
See, there's another obtuse posit Drakk. Anyone with a brain can read this thread and recognize that I have considered every one of your comments that I have replied to.
It makes perfect sense, especially for those who actually USE critical thinking rather than just bloviating about it.
Your 'this was and then it wasn't utterly ignores the fact the evolution doesn't happen that way.
YES, one quotes what TiG said while the other YOU inserted into the discussion JUST NOW.
Shitcanning critical thinking again I see.
First of all, JUST SAY GOD! Sheesh, WTF is your issue with just spitting it out?
In the first, society comes to a consensus on what is moral, in the second, those who pretend to speak for GODS impose 'their' version of morality.
Your question is about slavery and I have addressed the FACT that humanity has set a higher standard than your God did.
That isn't an IF statement Drakk. It is a FACT that society evolved, came to a consensus, and have now codified that slavery is immoral.
Nope. That would be DEvolving Drakk.
Let's try some critical thinking, shall we?
The 'factual foundation for morality' is the consensus reached by society over time Drakk. Unlike your posit, that shit didn't just drop out to thin air. From to first documented codified laws 'code of morality' [22 BC], humanity has been setting standards of morality for itself. Each generation has built on those standards as modernity evolved societies. It correlates with the evolution of international jurisprudence AND the laws in our own country.
Yes, actually, it does, and READING is fundamental.
You block quoted my comment Drakk so I presume that you actually READ it. Here it is again:
NOWHERE in that sentence do I say that slavery is wrong in and of itself. Though I WILL state as much here and now to be clear.
AGAIN, NOWHERE in that sentence do I say that the immorality of ANYTHING rests on ANYTHING.
Seriously, I'm REALLY TRYING to 'consider' what you say Drakk but when you just make shit up its nigh on impossible.
I'm pretty fucking sure that's a distinction without a difference.
WHO the FUCK claimed that 'what is moral has evolved' Drakk.
Stick your strawman where the sun don't shine.
It fails as poorly as your own posits.
No one said you did. It's just tiresome to watch you avoid the obvious.
Yet you prove that you can't. Using an overt pseudonym for God doesn't make any point any point other that accentuating the fact that you are desperately avoiding saying God.
I couldn't care less. I think it's comical.
It's been quite easy for me to 'attack' you posit cogently despite your machinations Drakk.
I have NEVER and would NEVER claim ANYONE had an 'unfounded faith' in God Drakk. Just STOP.
I didn't 'try and argument' Drakk, I made a cogent point.
First of all, I didn't say a fucking word about 'a particular government' Drakk.
I said LEADERS. So AGAIN, stick your strawman where the sun don't shine.
So now all you have to do is PROVE that the average Joe or Josephine cannot manage to find a moral path without YOUR God.
I'll say it again, GOD.
Since you're all about human history, you should at least acknowledge that is true for ALL governments 'eventually'.
It absolutely is supported by the definition. Show me how the existence of morality held by a particular society does not match the definition I provided. And do not repeat the source aspect because I will not state a source. The source for the morality of a particular society is obvious.
When will you cease this strawman? I have never suggested the dictionary defines what is moral or where it comes from. The dictionary defines the meaning of the word.
Show me where this definition states that morality is a singleton — that only one morality can exist (your argument). Is there only one society?
Yes, Drakk, that is exactly what it means. What a society considers to be moral is only considered true for that society. Another society might have entirely different views. This is the whole concept of subjective morality. A subjective morality is based on the subjective views of a society. And what a particular society believes is true only applies to them.
These are two societies each with their own different subjective moralities.
There is no flaw in my argument. I have never stated that the subjective moralities of all societies would be identical, in fact I have stated the opposite.
Your argument, however, is dead on arrival. To be true, you must redefine the English word 'morality' to impose a condition that only one morality can exist (that morality itself is a singleton ... that there is only one morality). That is a direct contradiction to the English meaning of the word 'morality'. That should be a clue to you that your position is wrong. If one must redefine an English word to be correct then one is demonstrably wrong.
An assertion you have been unable to support.
Determine? No, nor did anybody say they did. Describe? Yes. That's what words do. Words, being human constructs, can describe morality, also a human construct.
And I have not argued that it is wrong, in spite of your efforts to portray my argument as doing so. The dictionary does exactly one thing concerning definitions. Define the concept being spoken of. In the case of morality, it defines a concept concerning right and wrong. What it doesn't do is define what is moral or where morality comes from. Period. To say that a society holds a particular view as to what is moral has no bearing on the meaning of the word. You are trying to base your argument on a definition the dictionary doesn't support.
It's completely relevant as long as you try to claim the definition supports a relative meaning of the word. It doesn't support an objective meaning, either. This is because those things are outside the scope of defining the word. This is beyond contestation so I wonder at why you keep trying to make it otherwise. Is your argument so weak in your own eyes you have to resort to this?
Yet again, tediously, the defining characteristic of the word 'morality' is that it refers to the idea of what is good and what is bad. That's it. The whole thing. It doesn't address in any way whatsoever whether what an individual or society believes is moral is actually moral any more than the definition of 'geocentric' defines whether the belief is true or false, no matter who or how many believe it.
Aside from the fact you begin by saying let's not consider the source and then immediately assume the very thing you ask me to ignore, we don't need to be super technical. All we need to do is read the definition in its plain, literal meaning. After all, what use is a dictionary if one has to read between the lines?
Um, what? I have no objection to the dictionary definition of morality. In fact, the only reason we are talking about the dictionary definition is that you feel it's necessary for your argument.
Further, why on earth would I agree to eliminating the source, since that is the basis of my argument? You're not making any sense.
Oh, for truth's sake, TiG, can't you see the contradiction of your own statement???
Do you really not see this contradiction? You are literally stating that society is the source of morality and then stating that it isn't.
Yep. That's what the dictionary says, alrighty. What it doesn't do is define whether what that individual or society believes to be moral is actually moral. Can you really not see that? I suppose not. You actually believe that morality is a societal construct to the extend that you literally can't contemplate an alternative.
Of course, you can say something similar of me. Can I not contemplate that morality is simply an emergent property of a given society? Answer. Yes, I can, but I reject it because the evidence against the idea is overwhelming.
Okay. Give me a definition from your vaunted dictionary that says explicitly that morality is simply what a society decides it is.
Um, not really. You are the one who is resting his argument on a dictionary definition that the dictionary doesn't actually support. My argument is that for morality to be a real thing, it can't rest on what any individual or society thinks it is. My most often used example of this is that two opposing moral positions cannot both be true. The example I use to illustrate this is honor killings.
Since I believe the dictionary definition refers to the concept of right or wrong, good or evil, I don't think I'm redefining the word. Apparently, you think I am because one of the definitions states ' especially one held by a specified person or society.' Apparently, because it includes those words you believe it is stating that is the source of what is moral. This is not supported by a plain reading of the definition. It simply states what an individual or society believes to be true concerning morality, not that their belief is the source.
Therefore, since I am not trying to redefine the word, what's actually happening is that you are claiming that I am because I don't accept your view of where morality comes from and not because it goes against the dictionary definition. How can my position go against the dictionary definition when it doesn't address where morality comes from or what is actually moral?
This is becoming so tiresome. I am using the definition of the word correctly. And simply observing that societies have different ideas on what constitutes morality is no more critical thinking that realizing that water is wet. It is the why of it that involves critical thinking. Is there really a correct right way to behave or is it simply a word that means nothing more than what a collection of individuals or a culture does? My argument is that for morality to be a real thing, murder has to be wrong for every person and every culture in every time.
That different societies have different morals is only evidence that different societies have different morals. This is incontestable. It says not one thing about whether or not what those societies believe is actually moral. You can insist that what is moral is determined by the individual or society but you can't support it with evidence. No one acts or behaves as if morality is relative and is the basis for laws. Even in the absence of laws we still expect people and societies to adhere to what is moral. What else do you think the Nuremburg trials were based on?
I completely agree. Totally. Everything you said here is completely true, in my opinion. But, again, this isn't evidence that morality is subjective. It's only evidence that we treat morality as if it were. Conversely, it isn't evidence that morality is objective, either. It is nothing more or less than acknowledging what humans do.
Get over yourself. This isn't about you.
Disagree.
Yes, it is obvious. But realize that what you're illustrating is nothing more than what people and societies do. It doesn't actually address or prove what is moral. For instance, should you cross a border into a place where slavery was considered to be moral would your moral compas suddenly swing towards slavery being moral? And even if it didn't, would you simply think that it was the slaves tough luck to inhabit a geographical location where slavery wasn't immoral? Would your internal monolog say, "well I don't think this is right but they do. What moral reason would I have to change it?"
Not surprising that you think so. I agree that societies develop their own moral codes. As you say, it's obvious that they do. However, to assume that is all there is to morality is the opposite of critical thinking. It is the equivalent of a sub Saharan native assuming that water is only in one state because she's never seen snow or ice.
And I am not arguing against his obvious fact. What I am arguing against is that because they do so necessarily means morality is subjective. This is the weakness of your argument. It simply rests on the fact that humanity has varying interpretations of morality, therefore morality is subjective. This isn't logically supported.
Incorrect. Rather, you are imposing a definition the word doesn't have.
You seem to confuse the fact that I reply to you at all with replying to you all the time. I've read countless posts by you on various subjects but seldome comment.
Why would I do so? My argument doesn't rest on a dictionary definition, although it doesn't contradict it. Arguing definitions is your shtick, not mine.
Well, I can't force you to accept my views but let me ask you, is the abuse of children simply a societal issue or is it wrong no matter the society? Your answer will tell you what you really believe about whether or not morality is subjective or objective.
Who do you think you are fooling? The definition of the word ‘morality’ allows for many moralities but you insist there can be only one.
Thus you need to call your concept something other than ‘morality’ because it contradicts the meaning of the English word ‘morality’ and you do not have the authority to change the definition of English words.
Alternatively you could agree with me that there could be a single objective morality that would be superior to the subjective moralities that demonstrably exist in different societies. But you would have to give up your mere and unsubstantiated claim that only one morality can exist.
The fact that a position such as the abuse of children is common (likely) to all subjective moralities does not mean those subjective moralities do not exist as moral systems.
For crying out loud, TiG. I have to wonder what you think critical thinking consists of. Yes. The definition of morality in the dictionary allows for many interpretations of what is moral. This would be because the definition doesn't determine what is moral. It only defines a concept. Are you seriously going to argue that because of this, morality is subjective? That is, because the definition doesn't define what is moral therefore morality is subjective? And you consider this critical thinking? Why not say that the earth being flat is a reality because the definition of earth doesn't say it isn't?
Gosh! This would be relevant if denying that subjective morality doesn't exist was my point. Since it is not my point, care to try to post something relevant?
You seem to confuse my stating 'all the time' with claiming that you reply to 'my EVERY comment'.
You are at the top of my list of members that have replied IMPASSE to me this month Drakk. Yes, I count those as replies too...
Your practice of posting strawman fallacies in this thread is becoming tedious Drakk.
Please stop misstating members statements in sad attempts to bolster your position.
BTFW, morality is indeed subjective, not 'because' of its definition, but because morality is inherently based on personal feelings and/or opinions. You cited a society represented by the average Joe and Josephine, now you need only admit that their belief is based on personal feeling and/or opinion.
Yet you have argued, ad nauseam, that morality is 'recognized as something outside society', which utterly contradicts the definition YOU just block quoted. Own it.
You keep using the abuse of children as a moral hard and fast line in the sand. Yet 'we' all know that it hasn't been historically, and it isn't today.
The fact is, even in this society right NOW, what constitutes 'abuse of children' is subjective. There is a plethora of examples of parents denying their children a proper education or lifesaving medical treatment like vaccines or blood transfusions.
THIS society doesn't penalize that treatment outright and in fact, in many cases, defends it as 'parental rights'. Many judge that as immoral, many don't. It's SUBJECTIVE.
Which means that you are incorrect when you deny the existence of subjective morality (morality for a given society) claiming that it is not actually 'morality'.
Again with this stupid strawman. Nobody has suggested that the dictionary determines what is moral. It defines the word 'morality', it does not determine morality. The fact that you continue with this utterly brain-dead strawman proves that you are just arguing for the sake of argument. To what end? Who do you think you are fooling?
No, I point to the dictionary to show you that your insistence that only one morality exists is wrong. I have stated that objective morality could exist but that subjective morality does absolutely exist and we can all see the various subjective moralities in past and current societies. You continue to try to deny the obvious.
Drakk, if you are going to now retract your claim: morality is strictly objective and thus subjective morality (the morality of societies, the morality of individuals) does not exist then we basically agree.
I have, in this thread, stated repeatedly (and for years even before this thread) that objective morality might exist but that subjective morality does (demonstrably) exist.
Dulay - 1
Drak - 0
Seriously?
How do you do this and think you're making a valid point? Aside from the fact you are presenting a misleading description of my argument, you are literally saying that the dictionary definition of morality includes the idea that morality is subjective and not objective, something it doesn't actually do. So, once again...
The one and only thing the dictionary definition does is identify the concept being talked about. It does not define morality as either subjective or objective. That is something you add to the definition based on the observable fact that different people and cultures have differing points of morality.
I have to wonder why I even bother. You can't even paraphrase my actual argument, even after all this time.
That's rich, TiG. You continuously bring the dictionary definition of 'morality', falsely thinking it proves your point and insisting I'm changing the meaning of the word, now want to blame me because of what you yourself brought into this argument? Worse, you are parroting back to me my own argument concerning your definition as if you came up with it yourself and now have to set me straight.
You do this every time. Bring things down to stupid.
You must have me confused with someone else, then. I've only ever done one impasse in my life, and that was years ago.
Morality is subjective precisely because people are subjective. No other reason is necessary.
i.e. - It is as moral for nudists to be nude as it is for Muslim women to wear a burka.
I have never stated that. The dictionary does not rule out objective morality and in direct contradiction to you, it does not rule out subjective moralities. Pay attention. I have stated that the dictionary does not limit morality to be a singleton. It does not preclude societies from having their own rules of right vs. wrong and to call these 'morality'. You, however, preclude this and, in so doing, contradict the meaning of the English word 'morality'.
Further, I am not stating that morality is subjective vs. objective. I have stated repeatedly that objective morality could exist and that subjective moralities do in fact exist. Both objective morality and subjective moralities are on my table. Your table only allows a single objective morality.
You claim that morality is strictly objective. You claim that there cannot be subjective morality ... that the moralities of the various societies over time were not actually moralities. In short, you claim that the ONLY morality is objective morality.
If you do not claim that morality is a singleton and that it is strictly objective then please state your point in clear terms. One or two sentences.
No, Drakk, I put the dictionary in your face to show to you that the English word 'morality' is not defined as a singleton and that it clearly shows that different societies (and even individuals) can have their own morality. I put forth the dictionary not to prove my point but to illustrate that you must redefine the English word 'morality' for your point to even be superficially valid.
My point: subjective morality exists and is routinely evidenced. We can look at extant and historical societies and see that they have evolved different moralities — different rules for what they consider to be right vs. wrong. And while an objective morality (the highest morality that would necessarily come from a supreme entity) might exist, subjective moralities do exist and are the basis for how societies operate.
Your point: Objective morality is the only possible morality. What people call subjective morality does not exist. One and only one morality exists and it is objective morality. And you cannot even deliver this objective morality.
My point is evidenced. It is obvious.
Your point is not evidenced and it requires redefining the meaning of the English word 'morality'.
If that is true then how can you say...
How could I 'preclude' a definition the word doesn't have unless you attach that meaning to it, TiG? And you do it again, here...
Again, how can I contradict the definition of the word when the definition literally doesn't address the issue, unless you attach that meaning? Stating my argument concerning morality doesn't change the definition one bit since all that the definition does is identify the concept we are speaking about. It doesn't say or even hint at the nature of morality. So, what is there for me to contradict, TiG? The reality is, I'm not contradicting the word, I'm contradicting your views concerning morality. You know, the thing that makes this an argument about differing ideas?
If you're going to explain to me what my argument is, you should use the words I used rather than doing what you do here. This doesn't reflect my argument and is misleading.
My argument is that for morality to be a real thing it must be objective. If it is not then we're no longer using the word to identify correct behavior concerning what is good or bad, we would simply be saying what a given society prefers concerning what is right or wrong. For instance, I could not tell a man who has honor killed his daughter that he has done something immoral, since there's no basis for what is moral other than the opinions of a given society. All I can do is say to him that what he did was bad in my opinion but I can't say it as a fact.
Nor have I ever claimed that morality can't be subjectively applied. It's more than evident that it can be and is. However, if one accepts that morality is subjective they are no longer talking about actual right or wrong and, as I already said, simply stating what they or their society prefers to be true, not whether or not it actually is.
Well, if that's true, all you need do is point out the part of the definition that states that different societies can have different moralities. Not there, right? All you do is point out the fact that the definition doesn't include the word 'objective' and thinks it means it supports the view that morality is subjective. The truth, however, is that it doesn't say anything about it one way or the other because it's outside the scope of the definition. You accuse me of changing the meaning of the word but what I have really done is used what is called an adjective. Specifically, 'objective', which modifies the noun 'morality', which is the purpose of adjectives, and you claim I've changed the meaning of the word. If I say 'dog', we both know what I'm talking about. If I say 'big dog', have I changed the meaning of 'dog'? Neither does using 'objective' change the meaning of 'morality'.
Just because you ignore my offerings concerning this doesn't mean I haven't delivered. I've given examples of morality that has been true for every culture in every time. Treat others fairly. Keep your word. Don't be greedy. If that doesn't constitute objective evidence for you then nothing would.
Further, regardless of whether a person believes morality is subjective, they cannot help but act as if it is not. We interact with and judge others by a standard we can't but believe is objective and universal, applying to everyone.
Lastly, it's objectively obvious that for good and bad to be real things, directly opposed morals cannot both be right. The moment you try to you eliminate any meaningful concept of actual right and wrong.
All of this is evidence for my argument. If you refuse to accept what is plainly evident, that's on you, not me.
It's obvious that people and societies have subjective moralities. I've never denied that, but the only valid truth claim one can make from this is that people and societies have subjective moralities. It doesn't actually prove that morality is subjective. People in the old world wore charms to protect themselves from evil spirits. That doesn't prove charms work to protect from evil spirits or that evil spirits even exist in the first place. In the same way, just because people and societies have subjective moralities doesn't mean morality is actually subjective. In fact, a lot of the time the morals are recognizably objective but subjectively applied. What constitutes treating others fairly would be an example.
How many times must I explain this? The English word 'morality' speaks of moralities per societies and per individuals. It does not restrict morality to one and only one possibility. You do. By demanding that the only possible morality is objective morality you contradict the meaning of the word 'morality' which allows for more than one morality.
Thus subjective moralities are not true moralities. Thus you allow only one possible morality: objective morality. Just as I have stated.
And here again you emphasize that the only usage of the word 'morality' that you will allow is a single objective morality. Contradicting the meaning of the English word.
You can declare honor killing to be morally wrong per your own subjective morality. But you refuse to acknowledge that subjective morality even exists.
Is the subjective application of morality subjective morality? If not, then what do you think it is?
Again, I am not arguing that morality (as if it were a single thing) is subjective. I am arguing that while there could be a single objective morality, it is clear that there are in fact subjective moralities per societies (and even per individuals). And I am simply using the English word properly to describe what is highly evidenced and obvious.
No. Given the number of times I have explained this, there is no way that you could not know what I wrote. That means you are intentionally lying. I have stated that the dictionary meaning of the word 'morality' does not limit morality to be a singleton ... does not restrict the meaning so that one and only morality is possible.
Good grief man. What do you think I have been writing? If you recognize that subjective moralities exist then what is your objection to the point I have made?:
It is possible that an objective morality could exist that would be superior to all subjective moralities.
But we know that subjective moralities do exist.
I have never argued that morality (as a singular thing) is subjective. You really need to slow down and read what people write.
How many times are you going to try to sell something that isn't true? Once again, how can I contradict a definition the word doesn't actually have??? Figure out the grammar, TiG. I am not doing a thing to change the meaning of morality. What I am doing is modifying the word when I use the word 'objective'. You're doing the same thing when you use the adjective 'subjective'. Neither one of us is changing the meaning of the word. Rather, we are identifying a more specific concept on which we are speaking. Like the example I gave and you apparently ignored about 'big dog' doesn't change the meaning of 'dog', but rather, describes an attribute of a particular dog.
Let's try this from a different angle. You are correct that the word 'morality' allows for more than one morality. It is also correct to say it doesn't prevent morality to be a single objective thing, either, but it isn't because the definition defines this as an inherent property of morality. It is precisely because the definition has nothing to say about it either way. That is, there's nothing in the definition that prevents it being used to argue subjective, and therefore, multiple moral codes. So, if this is true, why can we use the adjective 'subjective' and not change the definition of the word but we can't do the same thing with 'objective'?
The answer can only be that you are adding something to the definition that doesn't belong. You are simply arguing that because we can speak of morality in terms of being subjective, and therefore, many different moralities, that being able to do so somehow defines morality to mean it is subjective. There's no other way you can say I'm changing the meaning of morality otherwise.
Um, yeah? Sort of the basis of my argument, TiG. Great job exposing what I've said from the beginning. I mean, you are aware, aren't you, that my argument is that for morality to be a real thing referencing real and objective good and evil, it cannot be subjective?
No kidding? Did I really? Maybe it's because it has to do with the argument I am attempting to make..
.. but unfortunately can't get past arguing about the plain meaning of a word.
Depends on what you mean, specifically. I recognize that people and societies have different moral codes. That's because of subjective beliefs concerning morality. Hence, subjective morality exists. Or, as I think is more accurate, people and societies treat morality as if it is subjective. But if you mean I don't recognize subjective morality as actually being moral in the same sense that an objective morality would be, then no. I don't believe it exists as actual factually true morality.
I'm not sure I understand the question. It seems like you are asking if the application of a subjective moral code applied inconsistently is subjective morality. A question that makes no sense to me.
And I wonder why you are arguing this. I certainly haven't argued against it. What I have been attempting to argue is the reason we should go from 'could be' in the highlighted text above and switch to 'is'. Pointing out that there is subjective morality doesn't really get us anywhere since all that does is point out there's subjective morality out there. It says nothing about whether it is actually moral.
(sigh)
Nor do I restrict the word 'morality' to one and only one morality. Grammar lesson, again. When I put the modifying adjective 'objective' in front of 'morality' I am now heading off into the territory of morality being only one thing. If I put 'subjective' in front of it, I'm now heading off in a different direction. But in neither case am I changing the meaning of the word, morality itself.
I mean, does it actually make sense to you that you can use the adjective 'subjective' and say you're not changing the meaning of the word but you can't do the same thing with 'objective'? How does that even work unless you include, even by implication, that morality is subjective? Your argument implies that we can't even discuss objective morality because, according to you, it changes the meaning of 'morality'. How does that work?
Who said I have an objection to this? More importantly, why do you get to use the term 'objective morality' without accusing yourself of changing the meaning of morality but I can't? Lastly, yes, we know subjective morality exists but that doesn't say anything beyond recognition they exist. It doesn't say whether or not subjective morals are actually moral. Which is kind of my point. If all morality is is what an individual or society thinks it is, we lose any meaning for good, bad, right, wrong or evil. It is insane to think that, because of where you happen to be standing, honor killing one's daughter is morally wrong, step over a border and now it's moral. If one tries to, they only succeed in saying there really is no morality. Just rules that those with the power to enforce them have made up or just some version of 'That's how we do things around these parts'.
I didn't say you did. Maybe you should simply realize this isn't about you. It's about the subject 'morality'.
Yes, Drakk, you insist that morality cannot be subjective — that it can only be objective. You insist that the only true morality is the singular objective morality.
You pretend as though I have missed this yet I have stated this repeatedly.
Logic lesson. If you allow only one instance of morality you are restricting morality to one and only one instance. If you state that subjective morality is not truly morality then labeling it subjective morality is a direct contradiction. Make up your mind. You cannot have it both ways.
What value is it to you to engage in these theatrics? Do you think you are fooling anyone? You are all over the map
Why pretend that you cannot understand this extremely simply concept? It is perfectly logical for one society to hold honor killing as morally right and have another society hold honor killing as morally wrong. That is the concept of subjective morality. I gave you the example of one society holding slavery as moral and another holding it as immoral.
A subjective morality applies within a scope (we have been using society as the example scope). When you step outside of one society and into another you will typically experience a different view of right vs. wrong.
Stepping from one society to another does not change objective morality (which is what you are implying). Objective morality (if it exists) would be true regardless of context. That is the key difference between objective (universal, context-free) morality and subjective (scoped, context-specific) morality.
At this point you seem to be arguing for the sake of argument. You implicitly agree and then disagree with what I wrote. I will just, yet again, put up the summary of our arguments. You seem to have no objection to what I have summarized yet you continue to argue. All for theatrics? Looks that way.
Drakk's position:
The only true morality is objective morality. So called 'subjective morality' is not morality. Thus morality is a singleton, one and only one morality exists and that morality is what I call objective morality.
TiG's position:
It is possible that an objective morality could exist that would be superior to all subjective moralities. But we know that subjective moralities do exist — they exist in every society.
When you put words in my mouth I will call you out.
Since I have never even suggested that morality is exclusively subjective you are either entirely confused or you have offered yet another strawman argument to your collection.
Subjective moralities exist. We see them. They are part of recorded history. There is no denying that they exist. They are the rules of right and wrong within a particular context. What is considered right in one subjective context may not be considered right in another.
Objective morality, if it exists, would be singular and superior. Objective morality would be objective (independent of context) truth.
I have stated before that what I mean concerning 'subjective morality' is people treating morality as if it were subjective. I've stated this multiple ways as well. I am assuming you are keeping this in mind. Or do I really need to keep making this distinction every time I say 'subjective morality'?
Where did I state I didn't understand the concept? What I said was, believing both to be moral is insane and not at all logical. In fact, it runs away from logic as fast as it can. Two diametrically opposed positions can't both be true according to logic. Do you notice that I gave you a reason as to why it isn't logical rather than simply declaring it logical without supporting evidence or reason, as you did? A true statement would be
That it is possible doesn't equate to logical. Nor does the fact that it is actually the case and not simply possible. The only way to involve logic is to begin with the statment 'There is no actual morality. No good or evil. There's just rules societies set for themselves and we just call them right or wrong because we're wired to think in those terms."
Superduper, TiG! You've outlined our respective positions. Now what? What is supposed to happen now?
People treating morality (objective morality in your view) as if it were subjective is not 'subjective morality'. Subjective morality would be a kind of morality. That is the what English works. Put an adjective in front of a noun and you have defined a special variant of that noun.
In effect you (by this statement) indeed reject 'subjective morality' as a kind of morality. So stick with that and don't play games by using the language 'subjective morality' to mean 'objective morality treated as though it were subjective'. Don't play games with semantics.
Oh you agree with my summary? A bit of clarity?
Okay, here is what happens. I note that you are redefining the English word 'morality' to be singular in direct contradiction to the meaning of the word. You are, as I have stated, redefining the English word 'morality' to fit your position.
I, in contrast, do not have to redefine any English words to make my point. In fact, my point as expressed in English is directly consistent with the meaning of the English word 'morality'.
You do the math, Drakk.
Now if you were genuinely trying to discuss this with me you might see that our positions have always been very close. The only difference is your stubborn refusal to accept that subjective moralities (rules considered to distinguish right vs. wrong in a specific context) do indeed exist.
If you were not being so gratuitously argumentative, we might be able to agree on this:
If objective morality exists it would be singular and would override all subjective moralities. Objective morality would be the universally true set of rules distinguishing right from wrong. This differs from subjective morality (i.e. the rules considered to distinguish right from wrong within a given scope such as a society) in that subjective morality is only considered truth within its scope; it is not necessarily truth.
This is just pointless.
You just cannot bring yourself to agree with this combination of positions; one that does not require redefining the word 'morality' yet recognizes both objective morality and subjective moralities:
If objective morality exists it would be singular (only one objective morality) and would override all subjective moralities. Objective morality would be the one-and-only universally true set of rules distinguishing right from wrong. This differs from subjective morality (i.e. the rules considered to distinguish right from wrong within a given scope such as a society) in that a subjective morality is only considered truth within its scope; it is not necessarily truth.
There is no redefining going on in my argument, TiG. There's no point to this as long as you keep claiming there is.
My argument is that for morality to actually be something real, it has to be objective. What about that redefines any portion of this Oxford definition? Answer? Nothing. Why? Glad you asked.
Does claiming morality must be objective to be some real thing change any portion of the first definition?
It doesn't seem so because in discussing objective morality doesn't change the fact we are still dealing with principles concerning distinctions between right and wrong or good and bad behavior, regardless of whether we're speaking of objective or subjective morality. Nothing here has changed.
The second?
Again, not seeing anything change here, either. In either objective or subjective, we are still talking about systems of values and conduct held by a specified person or society. Especially since we are speaking of something very particular when discussing objective morality.
Third?
Still no, since this is also included in the concept of objective morality. All of these points equally applies to 'subjective morality' as well and without changing the definition of the word morality itself, either.
More, we have to use words like objective and subjective to describe what we are talking about because the definition of 'morality' by itself doesn't carry the burden of defining these concepts, nor should it. So, once again, you are making the argument that I am attempting to redefine what a dog is simply because I put the adjective 'big' in front of it.
So, I'm tired of subjecting myself to this nonsense and I need to get ready for working the next three days.
Drakk, the English word 'morality' is not defined as a singleton (i.e. one and only one morality can exist). The word as defined explicitly allows for multiple moralities. The Oxford definition even offers two example scopes: society and individual. Societal morality is the primary example I have used throughout to express subjective moralities.
When you categorically deny that subjective morality is a form of morality and insist that the only allowed morality is the singleton objective morality, you explicitly limit the meaning of the word 'morality' to be a singleton. You are demanding that morality must be a singleton (only one morality can exist) in direct contradiction of the dictionary definition for the word.
The problem is not that you put an adjective in front of morality (e.g. objective morality). The problem is that you demand that there is one and only one morality ... period ... end of story.
This is so basic and so obvious; what motivates you to pretend you do not understand this?
For crying out loud, TiG. It allows for it not by definition but by the fact it doesn't even address the issue in the first place. It makes no statement whatsoever as to whether morality is singular or multiple in nature. And it doesn't explicitly allow for multiple moralities. If it had,
would read as
The definitions do not explicitly allow for multiple moralities, unless you now want to drag us into an argument concerning the meaning of 'explicit'. All you are really doing is insisting that somewhere in one of these definitions it defines morality as allowing for multiple, subjective moralities when in reality, it allows for it by what the definitions don't say.
Obviously. Except I don't categorically deny subjective morality exists in the sense it represents a code a person or society lives by. It's clear that they do. My point is, it's counterfeit. Not the real deal.
I am restricting the meaning but not changing the definition because the definition doesn't define whether morality is objective or subjective. Whether there is only one or there are multiple. You are inserting a definition that simply isn't there and then claim it is I who has redefined the word.
What's more, if morality were shown to be objective and what or who establishes it, it would necessarily restrict the meaning of morality whether anyone wanted it to or not. I have an argument for objective morality but we never actually get to this because you tie us up in this nonsense.
I'm not pretending anything. I understand your argument. I just don't agree it is correct. Apparently, though, you mean something like, if I really understood I wouldn't disagree with your position.
I am truly tired of your strawman tactics — especially when you repeat the same strawman no matter how many times it is addressed. I have never once claimed that the dictionary defines whether morality is objective or subjective. In fact, I have stated that the dictionary allows for various types of morality ... just add an adjective and refine the definition of the resulting term. You can define objective morality as a singleton and that is fine. But when you say that objective morality is the ONLY POSSIBLE MORALITY you are redefining the word 'morality' itself.
We use English to communicate. Words have meaning. The English word 'morality' allows for multiple moralities. But you stubbornly insist that there is one and only morality (which we are calling objective morality). You stubbornly refuse to recognize that subjective morality is morality too and is entirely consistent with the meaning of the English word morality.
Just look at how Oxford defines morality:
Clearly, for anyone capable of reading English, the word ' morality ' is not defined to mean exclusively the universally true rules of right vs. wrong. And even worse, Drakk, is that subjective morality as I use the term is a well-established concept that is abundantly evidenced in reality.
Note that I have always accepted the concept of objective morality. And I have argued that there might be an objective morality but there clearly are subjective moralities and we can see them as the foundation of societies (cultures, religions, ...).
The only disagreement is that you insist that there can be no subjective moralities - that the only possible morality is objective morality.
You can type until your fingers fall off, but you will not change reality and I doubt you will even fool anyone.
And I have stated that repeatedly yet you keep arguing against subjective morality being a type of morality. On one hand you allow subjective morality as a form of morality and then on the other hand you disallow it.
This @ 10.1.100 seems to capture the concept in a way that works for both of us and is perfectly aligned with the English meaning of the word 'morality' and uses concepts well established in philosophy:
If objective morality exists it would be singular (only one objective morality) and would override all subjective moralities. Objective morality would be the one-and-only universally true set of rules distinguishing right from wrong. This differs from subjective morality (i.e. the rules considered to distinguish right from wrong within a given scope such as a society) in that a subjective morality is only considered truth within its scope; it is not necessarily truth .
Why is it that you are still protesting? ' not necessarily truth ' ≅ ' not the real deal'.
TiG, look at what you're doing here. I believe that the nature of morality is that it is objective, which as we both agree would have to be established by someone outside of humanity. Since I believe that, it's a little difficult to figure out how I'm supposed to also recognize that, contrary to what I actually believe, morality is also multiple, simply on your argument that the dictionary "allows for it" which is pretty ambiguous wording, really. You further claim that if I do not hold contradictory concepts at the same time, I'm changing the meaning of "morality". So, essentially, your argument against objective morality being true, or even discussed, is that you think it would change the dictionary definition of the word. In other words, objective morality can't be true because you believe it would change the definition of a word in a dictionary.
Of course, you're going to say I've made a strawman of some sort in that. Your goal seems to be to get me to admit that subjective morality is also morality, or at least, meets the basic definition of 'morality'. I haven't denied that it does. I have repeatedly indicated that I recognize there are multiple moral codes out there, meaning codes by which people deal with what is right and wrong, morally. But as soon as I try to raise the conversation beyond this point, that is, discuss what is actually moral, you drag us back down to the definition of a single, unmodified word and then proceed to use that to show that objective morality can't be true because it would change what you seem to think morality is defined as.
What you can't seem to understand is the difference between the definition of the word 'morality' defining the subject being talked about and "objective morality' talking about the nature of the subject. The same goes with any modifier one cares to use with 'morality'.
Further, you can't see how your argument contradicts this statement. Your objection to my use of 'objective morality' is that it doesn't allow for multiple 'subjective moralities'. You can only have this objection if you think the definition of 'morality' includes multiple moralities. How else can you claim I am changing the definition of the word? The only other avenue open to you is to simply say morality can't be objective because the dictionary definition of 'morality' doesn't specifically say it is. Surely you can see the ridiculousness of such an argument. It would be like saying there can't be chocolate cake because the definition of cake doesn't specifically state that cake is chocolate.
Okay, TiG. In the hope that I can somehow drag you past this point, I agree with this as far as it goes. Unfortunately, you stubbornly refuse to let us get beyond this point. So, now that I've agreed, which should be obvious that I have from the beginning, what do you plan to do with my agreement?
This comment suggests ( and I know this is not the case ) that you do not understand the concept of specialization in English ( adjective noun constructs ). Consider this example:
A direct democracy is a democracy where the decisions are made by voting citizens.
'Direct democracy' imposes a restriction to modify the meaning provided by the word 'democracy'. This is perfectly legitimate and we remain free to use terms like 'indirect democracy' to identify a form of democracy where the decisions are made exclusively by elected representatives.
Both direct and indirect democracy are forms of democracy.
If someone were to INSIST that the ONLY POSSIBLE democracy is 'direct democracy', they are attempting to change the very meaning of the word 'democracy'. It does not matter how strongly they believe that the only 'true' democracy is 'direct democracy'. The insistence that indirect democracy (and all other subtypes of democracy) are NOT TRULY DEMOCRACY is an arrogant attempt to redefine the word 'democracy'.
This is what you are doing. You believe that the only true morality is objective morality. And that is fine. But you then deny that subjective morality (and any other {adjective} morality) is a form of morality. You thus impose singleton and true as defining characteristics for the word 'morality' itself. That, Drakk, is both wrong and arrogant.
Being super clear again:
I have never objected to objective morality (as defined) as a type of morality. The problem is that you have ( with some vague exceptions ) rejected subjective morality as a type of morality; you reject all potential types of morality and insist objective morality is the only morality.
It is you, not me, who has been unreasonable and I have illustrated this by the fact that your position requires redefining the word 'morality'.
I put this forth and apparently you now agree ( or maybe finally read it carefully ):
This was my attempt to get us past endless repetitive nonsense. Clearly I am not stopping you from going past this point. If you have something to offer then do so. The above wording represents a view of objective and subjective morality that works fine for me even before this 'discussion'.
You believe that only objective morality is true. I hold the same position that the only (100% perfect) true morality would be objective morality. Always have.
You believe that subjective morality is flawed since it is the product of human beings. I hold the exact same position.
I hold that the only morality we ever knowingly experience is subjective morality. If parts of a particular subjective morality (e.g. the subjective morality of Christianity or the subjective morality of the USA or the subjective morality of Drakkonis) happen to coincide with objective morality then we would not actually know that. We could surmise it with extreme examples such as: "raping and murdering a child is immoral" but that still is us reasoning with our human minds. The only way we could know what is objectively right vs. wrong is to have the actual rules of objective morality.
I claim that we do not have access to the actual rules of objective morality. If this is true, then my position is that we all necessarily operate under subjective moralities in lieu of having the defined truth (objective morality) available to us.
Clearly the floor is wide open for your comments to advance the 'discussion'.
Oh you're so right Drakk. I got may prattlers mixed up.
Your example doesn't work and, in reality, shows what's wrong with the way you are seeing this.
First, it would not change the meaning of the word 'democracy'. This can be easily shown because, regardless of the validity of the claim, any reasonable person will still understand the claim concerns democracy as opposed to some other form of government, such as a dictatorship or a monarchy. That is exactly what the word is supposed to do and does, even in your example. The same goes for morality. Regardless of what you think it does to the definition, a reasonable person will still know we are speaking about morality.
Second, we haven't been speaking in terms of what is POSSIBLE. We have been speaking in terms of MORALITY. These terms are apples and oranges. As long as we don't attempt to examine concepts such as good and bad, right and wrong beyond general concepts we know differing moral codes are possible, since we observe them every day. Put another way, if we define morality as simply an individual or societal choice, we aren't actually speaking of good and bad, right and wrong as definite things in and of themselves so of course multiple moralities are inevitable.
However, this discussion concerns subjective and objective morality and that addresses what is TRUE, not what is POSSIBLE. Not the same thing at all.
Try to take some time to think about this. It is not wrong or arrogant. It is simply what is imposed by the terms of the subject being discussed, not myself. Objective morality, by definition, means that any other supposed morality is false. That cannot be escaped without changing what objective morality means. It isn't arrogance on my part. Why you think it is I just don't get.
It is obvious to me that no matter how clearly I show your mistake you will come back with nuh'uh.
And, since you are back on the definition and are not moving forward from our ostensible point of agreement, it is also crystal clear that you are simply arguing for the sake of argument.
This is fun for you?
If you declare that the only possible democracy is direct democracy then you are redefining the word democracy by explicitly stating that every democracy is a direct democracy. There is thus no other type of democracy other than direct and democracy itself is thus necessarily and exclusively direct.
If you cannot see that then you have a mental block.
You cannot comprehend how that position redefines the English word morality?? You yet again declare that any other 'supposed' morality (meaning that these are not moralities) is false. You redefine the English word 'morality' to mean exclusively objective morality and thereby deem subjective morality (and any other type) to NOT be morality.
How can you possibly not comprehend what you are doing?
Perhaps the problem here is that you are arguing on only one specific sense of the word 'moral'.
I can't see how the definition of either 1 or 3 would change, regardless of whether we were speaking of objective or subjective morality. If objective morality could be proven to be factual in the sense that natural laws are factual, I don't see 2 changing, either, since even if morality were proven to be objective it doesn't mean everyone would accept it. We'd still have subjective morality in the world, so we'd still need that sense as well, even if it isn't real morality in the objective sense. One real morality and multiple counterfeit. No having to redefine morality.
Do you agree or disagree?
What is wrong with simply acknowledging that subjective moralities (as types of morality) do clearly exist and are imperfect since they are human products and that objective morality (the singular true morality determined by the creator) would be perfect morality?
'Real' is a bad word because subjective moralities are more real than objective morality. I would suggest 'true' or 'perfect' morality and multiple 'less than true' or 'imperfect' moralities.
The problem is not me or my argument.
So, I take it you do not agree. Thanks.
Europeans came to reintroduce the horse to North America. A brave and noble conservation project.
Why ask 4th graders to defend the indefensible?
How can anyone defend the Trail of Tears?