WOW, PETA people really are crazy!

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Either you are imposing your subjective morals, which cannot be any more right or wrong than someone else's subjective morals, or you think there are objective morals.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think someone who believes morals are subjective wouldnt think that "more right" or "more wrong" means anything. They would be imposing their morals because within that morality it is moral to do so. There's nothing inconsistent here. They do not have to say one morality is superior to another in any objective sense, merely that they believe one to be moral and the other not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have accurately described the application of will to power. I also think it is the only valid "moral" system outside of an objective universal moral code. Anybody telling you to do something you don't want to do needs to appeal to an objective source, or else is trying to suppress your natural liberty for their own personal ends and not yours.

[bunny]

But earlier you said:

[ QUOTE ]
Why are your values objective, since you will force others to conform to them, and mine merely subjective?

[/ QUOTE ]
which I think is mistating Kaj's position - I dont recall him ever saying he wouldnt try and impose his morality (in certain circumstances) nor that doing so implied it was objective.

The question I've quoted above implies that if you will force others to conform to your values, they must be objective. I think this is an invalid argument.

[Peter666]

"The question I've quoted above implies that if you will force others to conform to your values, they must be objective. I think this is an invalid argument."

To clarify, I think trying to convince a person that your morals are correct implies objective morality. To impose them outright does not imply this.

That's why I am waiting to hear the objective reason of why stepping on Fido's tail is wrong from those who want me to think it is.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
"The question I've quoted above implies that if you will force others to conform to your values, they must be objective. I think this is an invalid argument."

To clarify, I think trying to convince a person that your morals are correct implies objective morality. To impose them outright does not imply this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Surely not. If I consider morality to be subjective and purely a matter of opinion then I may try and persuade you to adopt mine - not because it is fundamentally better but because I prefer it and want (for whatever reason, perhaps not even related to morality) to persuade you to feel the same.

I think many with a subjective view of morality would argue passionately about it and seek to persuade others to accept whichever view they held, even if ultimately their position would be it's as objective as which brand of ice cream "should" one prefer. The difference in behaviour stems from how much they care about morality vs ice cream flavor.

I have had many arguments (quite long and passionate) trying to persuade a friend of mine that bridge >>>> poker. I'm seeking to persuade him to concede the point, yet I make no claim that there is a way to objectively determine which game is better.

EDIT: I think one with a subjective view of morality would just reject the concept of "correct". To them it is a question of opinion from the start. I dont see that this implies they have ceded the right to tell others how to live.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The question I've quoted above implies that if you will force others to conform to your values, they must be objective. I think this is an invalid argument."

To clarify, I think trying to convince a person that your morals are correct implies objective morality. To impose them outright does not imply this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Surely not. If I consider morality to be subjective and purely a matter of opinion then I may try and persuade you to adopt mine - not because it is fundamentally better but because I prefer it and want (for whatever reason, perhaps not even related to morality) to persuade you to feel the same.

I think many with a subjective view of morality would argue passionately about it and seek to persuade others to accept whichever view they held, even if ultimately their position would be it's as objective as which brand of ice cream "should" one prefer. The difference in behaviour stems from how much they care about morality vs ice cream flavor.

I have had many arguments (quite long and passionate) trying to persuade a friend of mine that bridge >>>> poker. I'm seeking to persuade him to concede the point, yet I make no claim that there is a way to objectively determine which game is better.

EDIT: I think one with a subjective view of morality would just reject the concept of "correct". To them it is a question of opinion from the start. I dont see that this implies they have ceded the right to tell others how to live.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well now you have perfectly defined sophistry, which to me seems utterly futile. But if you clearly define from the start that you do not think your position is provable, than I'll accept it as fact that you are exercising the will to power.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
"The question I've quoted above implies that if you will force others to conform to your values, they must be objective. I think this is an invalid argument."

To clarify, I think trying to convince a person that your morals are correct implies objective morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Convincing somebody that your morals are better (by whatever metric) is not appealing to objective morality.

[seemorenuts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I had a magic wand, I would wave it in such a way to get rid of animal cruelty and suffering.

That said, I have a few personal problems with PETA. First of all, almost all of their campaigns are overly sensationalist. I find it hard to believe that the only way to increase awareness about animal cruelty is to shove footage of cattle being slaughtered in our faces. Instead of ruining their own credibility like that, they could lobby to increase the cubic footage required for an egging hen, or press for subsidies of free range farming, or do a number of things. Animal cruelty is a serious subject and shockvertisement does nothing but undermine it and portray it as shallow.

Second, I think the folks at PETA should consider priorities. While I think the suffering of each turkey and alpaca is unfortunate, the world is being hurt far more by the decreasing trend of biodiversity. Biologists from think tanks around the globe are starting to speak up about how large scale fishing and sea dumping are killing off innumerable numbers of species of fish. Recently a chinese dolphin species went extinct, the first large vertebrate extinction in five decades.

Cruelty to animals can/will be stopped at some arbitrary point in the future. Extinction is something that cannot be reversed. It's permanent. Once the species is gone it's gone for good. I think the PETA folks really like animals, but I think they're stuck in a rut with their priorities and strategy all bungled up.

[/ QUOTE ]
My problems with PETA are their financial support of eco-terrorism, blatant hypocrisy in euthenizing animals, and misrepresentations of nutritional science to push a vegan diet.

[/ QUOTE ]

My problem with Mandela is that he was a murderer.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The question I've quoted above implies that if you will force others to conform to your values, they must be objective. I think this is an invalid argument."

To clarify, I think trying to convince a person that your morals are correct implies objective morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Convincing somebody that your morals are better (by whatever metric) is not appealing to objective morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Convincing somebody of anything appeals to a premise that is true to both parties. Good luck in appealing to your subjective morality as the arbiter of true or better morality.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The question I've quoted above implies that if you will force others to conform to your values, they must be objective. I think this is an invalid argument."

To clarify, I think trying to convince a person that your morals are correct implies objective morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Convincing somebody that your morals are better (by whatever metric) is not appealing to objective morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Convincing somebody of anything appeals to a premise that is true to both parties. Good luck in appealing to your subjective morality as the arbiter of true or better morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong again. You are pretty much batting .000 in terms of your understanding of logic.

[jtd00123]

I ate a hamburger after reading this thread.