Latest faith-based outrage.

[blackwater1110]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

I can see how you would get that impression, but actually I'm not a moral objectivist. I'm a plain old objectivist, so there's no room in my ontology for anything so rich as a "moral" in the familiar sense of the word. That, however, does not change the fact that I have moral sentiments, any more than the universe's failure to sanction my preference of chocolate to dog poop as Truth changes the fact that I would rather have a Snickers bar than chow down on poop.

Hmm. So, you see the universe, physically, as the same for everybody--it exists objectively--yet, that's just ontological. So you haven't answered the moral question. You then take the assumption that ethics are an aesthetic choice--something else I share, so I can see how they're not incompatible.
But then you say:

I do share with moral objectivists a preference for bright line rules which fit together within a describable, internally consistent system which can be applied in a more or less universal fashion

This is pretty much the kernel of moral objectivism--but the universalizing factor shows that even while you called it internally consistent, thus recognizing the possibility of there being other consistent moral systems and affirming the aesthetic nature of morals, you still hold others to your moral standards, and not just yourself, which is the crux of moral objectivity. All this seems to equate to, "Yes, morals are a personal preference, but I'll be judging everyone else by MY set of morals, not their own." Doesn't that strike you as a bit morally self-righteous?

Being offended from time to time and not reacting with a homicide is part of being a grown up in a civilization which has passed, say, the medieval stage of development. That's the point that Islam seems to be missing. It does not show many signs of heading toward anything like the enlightenment that substantially defanged Christianity. I tend reluctantly to the conclusion that pressure will have to be applied from the outside.

I agree about the toleration of freedom of speech, to extremes. What I don't like is when that speech is used irresponsibly or senselessly. You see a lot of that these days--I don't see rational argument in the public sphere as much as noise, even in our so-called "highly-developed" civilizations. Saying "Fuck Islam" tends to set that up as the Big Evil, and the Them vs. Us mentality that is so necessary to successfully create a war and was pulled off to a T with Bush's sale of Iraq, for example. However if one breaks it down and says something along the line of, "One thing I find troubling about Islam is the Qu'Ranic reference to punishing converts with murder," or, "The current Muslim atmosphere of punishing conversion with death is barbaric," then you have an issue that can be talked about sanely.

The idea of putting pressure on Islamic nations from the outside makes me queasy, for a variety of reasons.
It seems to be, to me, an impossible conundrum. If we take one extreme and say, "What other countries do is none of our business" complete tolerance--we also tolerate the barbary and intolerance of those other nations, which has the potential to destroy us. A case study would be Philadelphia. The Quakers let everybody in, and were extremely tolerant, which worked great until an intolerant group (Puritans?) came in and decided to wipe out the Indians in the region and persecute minority groups. So complete tolerance doesn't present a very appealing endgame.
The other extreme would be imposing tolerance from outside. My problem is, I don't have a good example of what happens when you try and do this, and the evidence suggests that if you try to make others more tolerant with force, then it will only justify for them their intolerance--thus, the reason Muslims hate America now more than ever, despite our attempts to create democracy there. Any suggestions for something that might work?

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by blackwater1110

Hmm. So, you see the universe, physically, as the same for everybody--it exists objectively--yet, that's just ontological. So you haven't answered the moral question. You then take the assumption that ethics are an aesthetic choice--something else I share, so I can see how they're not incompatible.

Close enough, but one minor correction. Ethics seem to run a little deeper than "aesthetic choice". I'm not sure I make a choice, aesthetic or otherwise, to become upset when religious fucknuts are shoving their bullshit down other people's throats, any more than I choose to prefer chocolate to poop. That's just how I am.

But then you say: "I do share with moral objectivists a preference for bright line rules which fit together within a describable, internally consistent system which can be applied in a more or less universal fashion." This is pretty much the kernel of moral objectivism...

It's a feature sometimes (though hardly always) found in moral objectivism. Actually, most people in our culture see morality as an objective question, but lack anything even vaguely resembling a systematic approach to that question. But a guy like you doesn't need me to point that out. You've already noticed.

The kernel of moral objectivism is thinking that morals are objective. Hence the name.

...but the universalizing factor shows that even while you called it internally consistent, thus recognizing the possibility of there being other consistent moral systems...

So far, so good.

...you still hold others to your moral standards, and not just yourself, which is the crux of moral objectivity.

Before I could respond to your description of my attitude and behavior, you would need to define "hold to" for me. In any case, my answer would probably be "No, I do not hold people to my moral standards," or "No, that is not the crux of moral objectivity," or both.

All this seems to equate to, "Yes, morals are a personal preference, but I'll be judging everyone else by MY set of morals, not their own." Doesn't that strike you as a bit morally self-righteous?

I wonder if you would unpack that question for me a bit - specifically, the bits between the lines. I'm not trying to attack the question, or squirt definitional ink. This is definitely the most interesting point on the table. I suspect that what's motivating your question is one of the central fallacies of our philosophical age, but my treatement of it will be a lot more effective if I can get you to produce the fallacy in explicit form yourself. Imposing the interpretation from my side will screw up the logical and rhetorical effect.

Put it this way. Notice the grammatical form of your question. It's a negative interrogative. What are you asking? Are you seeking information? If so, what information? Are you seeking something else? Then what?

Saying "Fuck Islam" tends to set that up as the Big Evil, and the Them vs. Us mentality that is so necessary to successfully create a war and was pulled off to a T with Bush's sale of Iraq, for example.

On the contrary, the Bush regime has taken its efforts to avoid having people think of the Iraq war as having anything to do with religion to positively comical lengths. I'll back that claim up if you want, but I doubt that's necessary. It's rare to find so much energy put into propagandizing the public into believing a thing which is true anyway. I'll come to why I don't feel too bad about saying things like "Fuck Islam" below.

However if one breaks it down and says something along the line of, "One thing I find troubling about Islam is the Qu'Ranic reference to punishing converts with murder," or, "The current Muslim atmosphere of punishing conversion with death is barbaric," then you have an issue that can be talked about sanely.

I frequently do voice specific criticisms very much like those in your examples, although I do not carry diplomacy to the extent of deliberately hiding crucial facts for the sake of a few minutes of conversational harmony. I would not, for example, use the phrase "current atmosphere" here. That's a lie by omission.

The idea of putting pressure on Islamic nations from the outside makes me queasy, for a variety of reasons.

This brings us back around to the original issue. I should have chosen my words more carefully. By "pressure" I did not mean military intervention (which I would oppose) or even official diplomatic or economic pressure (though those would be worth thinking about). What I meant was this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...eds-ansigt.png

And this:

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Fuck Islam.

Muslims are not going to ditch their habit of stifling dissent by violence while we whinge about "sensitivity" and mollycoddle their murderous obsession with control. They must be repeatedly subjected to the spectacle of their precious taboos being flaunted without personal consequence. Sooner or later the cognitive dissonance will become too great, that they'll have to realize that the laws of physics do not unravel when someone calls Muhammad a pederast, the sun does not come crashing down out of the sky if a woman wears a bikini, and life goes on even after some guy on YouTube puts the Qu'ran in a toilet.

I think this is especially so because humans are naturally envious of freedoms. When you force them to obey a rule, especially an arbitrary and purposeless one, nothing creates more resentment in their heart than seeing other people break it. They normally react by punishing the rule breaker, but when that option is taken away from them the hatred eventually gets turned against the proper target - the rule itself.

Freedom does not mean the freedom to destroy freedom. Tolerance does not mean bowing to intolerance. And sensitivity is for your kid sister and people who prefer to talk - not people who are only talking because they don't have enough guns to get things done the other way.

So on that note, fuck Islam. Fuck it in the ass.