|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: yes, but how much have you lost playing poker during your lifetime? | |||
| Less than 50k |
   
|
16 | 32.65% |
| 50 - 100k |
  
|
1 | 2.04% |
| 100 - 200k |
  
|
2 | 4.08% |
| 200 - 300k |
  
|
0 | 0% |
| 300 -500k |
  
|
0 | 0% |
| 500k - 1mm |
  
|
3 | 6.12% |
| 1mm-2mm |
|
0 | 0% |
| 2mm-3mm |
|
0 | 0% |
| 3mm-4mm |
|
0 | 0% |
| 4mm+ |
|
27 | 55.10% |
| Voters: 49. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#21
08-22-2007, 12:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] My personal preferences are for moral systems which are consistent over those which are inconsistent, and for systems which treat all people as equal (morally) over systems that have different classes of people. Do you agree or disagree with those subjective preferences? [/ QUOTE ] Those statements are too broad and vague for me to agree with. [/ QUOTE ] So you disagree with them? If so, why? [/ QUOTE ] Because they're too broad and vague. It's impossible to have a consistent system of morality. Morality has to be somewhat fluid, because no two situations are exactly alike. Also the word "consistent" is too vague for my liking, so you should be more specific if you want to get a real discussion going. As to "systems which treat all people as equal (morally)", that's broad enough that it doesn't sound like something I'd jump to agree with, but it's vague enough that I'm not going to try and argue against it. Again, be more specific. 
|
|
#22
08-22-2007, 12:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
Again, be more specific. [/ QUOTE ] Come on over to poltics. Like I said, this pole only really makes sense in the context of the threads which spawned it.
|
|
#24
08-22-2007, 12:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
PVN,
Hypothetically, if one had a moral system which justifies seizing property of those with an excess of 10x the average and giving to those well below the average, is this considered treating people equally (morally) by your definition? If the answer is no, then I think we have a definition problem. Because I'd argue this moral system can be equally applied to all people (thus they are treated equal). The reason I ask, of course, is because I have a suspicion that your clause is intended to rule out such moral systems.
|
|
#25
08-22-2007, 03:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Again, be more specific. [/ QUOTE ] Come on over to poltics. Like I said, this pole only really makes sense in the context of the threads which spawned it. [/ QUOTE ] I'd rather not, as I only have so much reading energy. Plus I'm not confident it would answer my questions. But feel free to copy and paste relevant excerpts if you want.
|
|
#26
08-22-2007, 07:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
"My personal preferences are for moral systems which are consistent over those which are inconsistent, and for systems which treat all people as equal (morally) over systems that have different classes of people."
How could a moral relativist have any preference? By definition, if you have a preference then you aren't a moral relativist.
|
|
#27
08-22-2007, 07:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I don't understand what I have to agree or disagree on. That all people should be treated equally? [/ QUOTE ] Sort of, but it wouldn't be limited to just that. In a system that is both consistent and has only one class of people, actions that are morally permissible for any one person must be morally permissible for all (good for one, good for all) and actions that are impermissible for one must be impermissible for all. If it is bad for me to point a gun at you and demand your money, it must be bad for anyone to do that. [/ QUOTE ] I'll agree that in all likeliness, moral rules should apply to all members of the society. Note that this is different to all human beings.
|
|
#28
08-22-2007, 07:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Ultimately any moral system is judged by the benefits it provides to those that employ it. [/ QUOTE ] What about the judgments of others? [/ QUOTE ] They are irrelevant.
|
|
#29
08-22-2007, 09:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Ultimately any moral system is judged by the benefits it provides to those that employ it. [/ QUOTE ] What about the judgments of others? [/ QUOTE ] They are irrelevant. [/ QUOTE ] So a moral system can only be judged by those who adhere to that moral system based on benefits it provides? Do you see how this might be a bit ridiculous? If that's the case, a better moral system for me would be to steal every time I can get away with it than to not.
|
|
#30
08-22-2007, 10:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: For moral relativists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] My personal preferences are for moral systems which are consistent over those which are inconsistent, and for systems which treat all people as equal (morally) over systems that have different classes of people. Do you agree or disagree with those subjective preferences? [/ QUOTE ] Those statements are too broad and vague for me to agree with. [/ QUOTE ] So you disagree with them? If so, why? [/ QUOTE ] Because they're too broad and vague. It's impossible to have a consistent system of morality. Morality has to be somewhat fluid, because no two situations are exactly alike. Also the word "consistent" is too vague for my liking, so you should be more specific if you want to get a real discussion going. As to "systems which treat all people as equal (morally)", that's broad enough that it doesn't sound like something I'd jump to agree with, but it's vague enough that I'm not going to try and argue against it. Again, be more specific. [/ QUOTE ] Proving Libertarian Morality See what you think.
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
