French Ban on Religious Symbols in Schools

[Jester]

In response to this law, Human Rights Watch issued this statement:

The proposed law is an unwarranted infringement on the right to religious practice. For many Muslims, wearing a headscarf is not only about religious expression, it is about religious obligation in salaat.

Do you agree or disagree with the Human Rights Watch's reaction (and, of course, give your reasons)?

[Cephus]

This seems to be the same sort of reasoning that some use to argue that the majority has every "right" to disallow homosexual marriages. In terms of democracy, the majority certainly has the power to do so, the question as to whether or not one should is the issue at hand.

If you mean to take a nihilistic position with regard to ethics, you are certainly allowed. This, however, precludes the possibility of commenting on ethics at all or claiming that any group should or shouldn't do anything.

The fact of the matter is, the majority *DOES* disallow homosexual marriages, people go to the ballot box to vote on it and it gets either allowed or disallowed based on the vote of the majority. In fact, there is nothing in the Constitution that isn't open to change if you can get enough people to vote to change it. There are no rights that are sacrosanct.

Recognizing this reality doesn't mean you're not allowed to comment on it, it just means you cannot comment authoratatively. You cannot make a claim that this is right or this is real because it's written down in some book or document. You actually have to try to make a logical, rational case for why it ought to be accepted as true, something very few people actually manage to do.

[Jester]

This seems to be the same sort of reasoning that some use to argue that the majority has every "right" to disallow homosexual marriages. In terms of democracy, the majority certainly has the power to do so, the question as to whether or not one should is the issue at hand.

If you mean to take a nihilistic position with regard to ethics, you are certainly allowed. This, however, precludes the possibility of commenting on ethics at all or claiming that any group should or shouldn't do anything.

The fact of the matter is, the majority *DOES* disallow homosexual marriages, people go to the ballot box to vote on it and it gets either allowed or disallowed based on the vote of the majority. In fact, there is nothing in the Constitution that isn't open to change if you can get enough people to vote to change it. There are no rights that are sacrosanct.

I am aware that this is the practical reality. I was asking about rights. If you are taking a nihilistic approach, that is certainly allowed. Pointing out the reality of what does happen, however, says nothing within a discussion about should happen.

Recognizing this reality doesn't mean you're not allowed to comment on it, it just means you cannot comment authoratatively. You cannot make a claim that this is right or this is real because it's written down in some book or document. You actually have to try to make a logical, rational case for why it ought to be accepted as true, something very few people actually manage to do.

My question was not about your opinion of the mental abilities of most. Rather, I am interested in what you mean by "a rational case for why it ought". You seem to be arguing above that there is no value in statements about rights - essentially there is no real meaning of "should" in statements that claim "people should do this or that". How, then, can we make a reasonable case for what people "ought" to accept? Are there any grounds for demanding that someone accept anything if we admit at the start that nothing is really moral or immoral? Who is to say that people should or shouldn't ban religion - or atheism? I see no real grounds for such claims from a nihilistic perspective.

[Cephus]

I am aware that this is the practical reality. I was asking about rights. If you are taking a nihilistic approach, that is certainly allowed. Pointing out the reality of what does happen, however, says nothing within a discussion about should happen.

Should is a philosophical question, it really has no point here. Whether or not you think something ought to happen, the fact is, it does. Sure, we can all argue that nobody ought to murder, nobody ought to rape and nobody ought to kick puppies, but the fact is, people do all of those things and we need to deal with the actual reality rather than the reality we wish existed.

My question was not about your opinion of the mental abilities of most. Rather, I am interested in what you mean by "a rational case for why it ought". You seem to be arguing above that there is no value in statements about rights - essentially there is no real meaning of "should" in statements that claim "people should do this or that". How, then, can we make a reasonable case for what people "ought" to accept? Are there any grounds for demanding that someone accept anything if we admit at the start that nothing is really moral or immoral? Who is to say that people should or shouldn't ban religion - or atheism? I see no real grounds for such claims from a nihilistic perspective.

There's no objective value in statements about rights, certainly there can be subjective value. When you're examining another culture, for example, all you can really say about their actions is "I think X" or "I think Y", you can never really say that what they do is objectively right or objectively wrong because right and wrong are inherently subjective terms.

Take an evaluation of the Aztecs for example. They killed enemy combatants in public as a sacrifice to their gods. Certainly today, most people would find what they did barbaric, but how do you defend that? What the Aztecs did worked for them. In fact, the captured enemy would voluntarily line up and wait for their turn to be sacrificed because they believed that their deaths would help everyone, including their families and cultures. You can argue all you want that they had a "right to life", but in Aztec society, they simply didn't.

Now you can argue whether or not you think that should have been true, but it takes more than "it says so in my book" to do it. It takes a lot more than making what you think is an authoratative claim and then resting on your laurels. It takes arguing for or against an idea, based on the merits, or lack thereof, of the idea itself. It requires logic, evidence and reason and it is not something that you can present that's automatically going to stand the test of time, just because you want it to. "Moral" and "immoral" have no objective basis, they are just ideas that people like or dislike, based on their own subjective interpretation, they really don't mean anything. People are looking for instant "I win!" answers that they never have to think about again, but reality, no matter how much people might like it to, just doesn't work that way.

[Jester]

Should is a philosophical question, it really has no point here.

It is definitely relevant to the topic question.

Whether or not you think something ought to happen, the fact is, it does. Sure, we can all argue that nobody ought to murder, nobody ought to rape and nobody ought to kick puppies, but the fact is, people do all of those things and we need to deal with the actual reality rather than the reality we wish existed.

I don't see why people would bother to "deal with the actual reality" unless they first believed that people shouldn't murder (or, in this case, prevent public school students from fully expressing their beliefs). There is no handling a situation without a vision of what you want your end goal to be - meaning that "should" is very necessary. Simply passively accepting that humans do what humans do, with no ideas as to how you feel things might be better is not handling a situation.
Surely, many of the things you have claimed about religion in the past would make little sense to me unless you feel that people should cease practicing it.

My question was not about your opinion of the mental abilities of most. Rather, I am interested in what you mean by "a rational case for why it ought". You seem to be arguing above that there is no value in statements about rights - essentially there is no real meaning of "should" in statements that claim "people should do this or that". How, then, can we make a reasonable case for what people "ought" to accept? Are there any grounds for demanding that someone accept anything if we admit at the start that nothing is really moral or immoral? Who is to say that people should or shouldn't ban religion - or atheism? I see no real grounds for such claims from a nihilistic perspective.

There's no objective value in statements about rights, certainly there can be subjective value. When you're examining another culture, for example, all you can really say about their actions is "I think X" or "I think Y", you can never really say that what they do is objectively right or objectively wrong because right and wrong are inherently subjective terms.

If you believe all such claims are a matter of opinion, then I can respect that position, and agree that it is perfectly reasonable if one does not first accept a theistic paradigm as true. I will try to be careful to remember that this is your perspective when you make claims about what people should do in the future.
That said, do you have a personal opinion about this particular law? Is it logically consistent with your other opinions about how you would like people treated and/or do you not feel the need for such beliefs to be consistent?

Take an evaluation of the Aztecs for example. They killed enemy combatants in public as a sacrifice to their gods. Certainly today, most people would find what they did barbaric, but how do you defend that? What the Aztecs did worked for them. In fact, the captured enemy would voluntarily line up and wait for their turn to be sacrificed because they believed that their deaths would help everyone, including their families and cultures. You can argue all you want that they had a "right to life", but in Aztec society, they simply didn't.

I agree that ideas about what is right or wrong has changed over time. I don't see that it evidences nihilism, or otherwise has much to do with my point.

Now you can argue whether or not you think that should have been true, but it takes more than "it says so in my book" to do it. It takes a lot more than making what you think is an authoratative claim and then resting on your laurels. It takes arguing for or against an idea, based on the merits, or lack thereof, of the idea itself.

If there is no objective value to such things, and "merits, or the lack thereof" are simply personal opinion, then is any logic which follows based on sound premises?
Also, is there any selection process for which opinions are acceptable? If so, what is this process? If not, could we not simply call the conclusion an opinion and skip the logic without any contradiction of the system you present?

"Moral" and "immoral" have no objective basis, they are just ideas that people like or dislike, based on their own subjective interpretation, they really don't mean anything.

Then why bother with logic at all? Why not simply claim the conclusion as your subjective opinion?

People are looking for instant "I win!" answers that they never have to think about again, but reality, no matter how much people might like it to, just doesn't work that way.

It seems that the idea that there is no objective morality leads us much faster to instant "wins" (through claiming a simple opinion that this or that thing is "good" or "bad") than the idea that we have to consider the idea that an objective morality exists, study it, and make certain that our ideas are logically consistent both internally and with what we know of it.

Lastly, and most significantly, on what grounds would you attempt to convince others that any sort of behavior ought to be stopped if you admit from the outset that your own case is based simply on personal opinion, no more valid than theirs?

[Cephus]

I don't see why people would bother to "deal with the actual reality" unless they first believed that people shouldn't murder (or, in this case, prevent public school students from fully expressing their beliefs). There is no handling a situation without a vision of what you want your end goal to be - meaning that "should" is very necessary. Simply passively accepting that humans do what humans do, with no ideas as to how you feel things might be better is not handling a situation.

Most people only deal with "morality" in purely functional terms. The law says you cannot do X, if you do X, you will be punished, therefore they don't do X. That's as far as most people ever go. While you and I can come up with all kinds of rationalizations for why we think some things ought to be done and some things ought not be done, in the end it's just subjective ways of justifying what we already think ought to be true, but those rationalizations may mean nothing to people who don't share our views. Try arguing with a solipsist about reality or with an anarchist about politics and you'll see what I mean, there is no common frame of reference with which to come to a common understanding.

Accepting that there is some all-encompassing objective morality handed down from on high simply doesn't fit with the evidence we see around us. The standards for morality or law vary drastically as you move from culture to culture, from society to society and from time to time. Morals are not static, there isn't a single moral precept in existence that has held to a single standard throughout all time and space. It just doesn't happen.

If you believe all such claims are a matter of opinion, then I can respect that position, and agree that it is perfectly reasonable if one does not first accept a theistic paradigm as true. I will try to be careful to remember that this is your perspective when you make claims about what people should do in the future.
That said, do you have a personal opinion about this particular law? Is it logically consistent with your other opinions about how you would like people treated and/or do you not feel the need for such beliefs to be consistent?

Personally I think the law goes too far, but then again, I don't know the exact circumstances behind the creation of the law either. If they have been having serious problems with religious violence and are trying to use this as a means to curb it, then I would support some measure which might do so. It's the same as schools outlawing gang colors in trying to reduce gang violence.

However, the law in question doesn't affect me in the least, it's not my culture or society, nor do I ever have to deal with it since I'm not in France. They have a right to do what they want to do to combat their particular problems. Do I agree with what they're doing, coming from my particular cultural paradigm? Maybe not. Does that mean jack squat to them? Nope.

I agree that ideas about what is right or wrong has changed over time. I don't see that it evidences nihilism, or otherwise has much to do with my point.

You keep bringing up nihilism, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter. Do you really believe that unless you are given a purpose externally, that there is no purpose whatsoever? Honestly?

If there is no objective value to such things, and "merits, or the lack thereof" are simply personal opinion, then is any logic which follows based on sound premises?

Certainly, I can make a sound logical case for why widespread killing in the streets is a bad thing, it's not difficult at all to do. If lots of others agree with me, then we can form a society based around the ban of widespread killing. However, there's really nothing objectively wrong with killing, it goes on every day. Animals kill for food, the concept of predator and prey is universal throughout all life on the planet. Heck, we have no problem with killing in war, killing in self-defense, accidental killing, etc. We sure don't mind killing that cow so we can have a cheeseburger. Yet we've taken one very narrowly-defined kind of killing and outlawed it in most cultures and you can't see how that's subjective?

Also, is there any selection process for which opinions are acceptable? If so, what is this process? If not, could we not simply call the conclusion an opinion and skip the logic without any contradiction of the system you present?

Mostly popularity. There was a time in this country when most people thought owning another human being was perfectly fine and defended it with the Bible. Lots of people supported it, therefore it was legal. As the prevailing opinion changed, it stopped being legal and we even fought a war over it. However, was slavery moral while it was legal and then became immoral? Or was it always immoral and they were just stupid? Or is it always moral and today we're just deluded? For those people who claim objective, unchanging morality, it's an uphill battle to prove that any moral precept that has changed was either moral or immoral, or that anything we hold as moral today really is because maybe in the future our opinions will change.

It seems that the idea that there is no objective morality leads us much faster to instant "wins" (through claiming a simple opinion that this or that thing is "good" or "bad") than the idea that we have to consider the idea that an objective morality exists, study it, and make certain that our ideas are logically consistent both internally and with what we know of it.

This is the fallacy of the appeal to consequences. You are arguing that because you don't like where one side potentially leads, it must be false.

Lastly, and most significantly, on what grounds would you attempt to convince others that any sort of behavior ought to be stopped if you admit from the outset that your own case is based simply on personal opinion, no more valid than theirs?

Obviously by trying to change their opinions about the subject matter. Validity means nothing in public opinion, look at some of the absurd laws that get passed in this country because the public has been convinced of something entirely ridiculous. It happens every day. There is no "absolutely true" position, just one that people will cling to. The goal, at least as far as I'm concerned, is to make that position one that is logically defensible and supportable by actual evidence if at all possible.

[Jester]

I don't see why people would bother to "deal with the actual reality" unless they first believed that people shouldn't murder (or, in this case, prevent public school students from fully expressing their beliefs). There is no handling a situation without a vision of what you want your end goal to be - meaning that "should" is very necessary. Simply passively accepting that humans do what humans do, with no ideas as to how you feel things might be better is not handling a situation.

Most people only deal with "morality" in purely functional terms. The law says you cannot do X, if you do X, you will be punished, therefore they don't do X. That's as far as most people ever go. While you and I can come up with all kinds of rationalizations for why we think some things ought to be done and some things ought not be done, in the end it's just subjective ways of justifying what we already think ought to be true, but those rationalizations may mean nothing to people who don't share our views. Try arguing with a solipsist about reality or with an anarchist about politics and you'll see what I mean, there is no common frame of reference with which to come to a common understanding.

Regardless of my thoughts on this, it is not a response to my comments above. If we are "justifying what we already think ought to be done" then, indeed, we already have an idea about how things would be better. Else, why would those laws that people obey out of fear, or any other reason, exist at all?
You are free to call it subjective, but one can't say that we deal with issues without an idea (whether subjective or objective) about how things ought to be. The only difference is that a subjective idea is not defensible.

Accepting that there is some all-encompassing objective morality handed down from on high simply doesn't fit with the evidence we see around us. The standards for morality or law vary drastically as you move from culture to culture, from society to society and from time to time. Morals are not static, there isn't a single moral precept in existence that has held to a single standard throughout all time and space. It just doesn't happen.

Personally, I don't know anyone who argues in favor of objective morality on the grounds that ideas about it are unchanged throughout history. To be sure, I do not.
As such, I don't see any validity in the idea that ideas about morality of various cultures is in any way the test for the existence of objective ethics. Nor have I heard any legitimate philosopher make that case.

If you believe all such claims are a matter of opinion, then I can respect that position, and agree that it is perfectly reasonable if one does not first accept a theistic paradigm as true. I will try to be careful to remember that this is your perspective when you make claims about what people should do in the future.
That said, do you have a personal opinion about this particular law? Is it logically consistent with your other opinions about how you would like people treated and/or do you not feel the need for such beliefs to be consistent?

Personally I think the law goes too far, but then again, I don't know the exact circumstances behind the creation of the law either. If they have been having serious problems with religious violence and are trying to use this as a means to curb it, then I would support some measure which might do so. It's the same as schools outlawing gang colors in trying to reduce gang violence.

However, the law in question doesn't affect me in the least, it's not my culture or society, nor do I ever have to deal with it since I'm not in France. They have a right to do what they want to do to combat their particular problems. Do I agree with what they're doing, coming from my particular cultural paradigm? Maybe not. Does that mean jack squat to them? Nope.

This is fair enough in terms of having your opinion - I mostly agree with it, to be honest.
I don't know how the French have "the right" under the idea that all concepts about morality and human rights are subjective. Clearly they have the power to do so, and I suppose there is nothing in a nihilistic paradigm which would suggest that you should care about people with whom you don't interact.
The only real objection I would have (other than point out that I'm not a nihilist myself) is with comments you have made in the past encouraging others to be disgusted by "bad" events that were centered around religion when those things have no more to do with our lives than French laws have to do with yours.
You are certainly allowed to make such comments, but I don't personally feel that they are consistent with your views here.

I agree that ideas about what is right or wrong has changed over time. I don't see that it evidences nihilism, or otherwise has much to do with my point.

You keep bringing up nihilism, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter. Do you really believe that unless you are given a purpose externally, that there is no purpose whatsoever? Honestly?

Yes. That is exactly the case. All else is purely subjective. As you point out above about morality:

in the end it's just subjective ways of justifying what we already think ought to be true, but those rationalizations may mean nothing to people who don't share our views.

Why would this not apply equally well to purpose in life?

If there is no objective value to such things, and "merits, or the lack thereof" are simply personal opinion, then is any logic which follows based on sound premises?

Certainly, I can make a sound logical case for why widespread killing in the streets is a bad thing, it's not difficult at all to do.

This statement directly contradicts the one above, unless by "bad" you only mean something that most people don't happen to like.
If that is the case, however, you aren't making a logical case, but merely appealing to preferences. Fair enough, but that brings us back to my claim above that we would be trying to base a "logical" conclusion on premises that are nothing more than opinion.

If lots of others agree with me, then we can form a society based around the ban of widespread killing. However, there's really nothing objectively wrong with killing, it goes on every day.

That it goes on is neither proof nor disproof of its wrongness.

Yet we've taken one very narrowly-defined kind of killing and outlawed it in most cultures and you can't see how that's subjective?

I had just been arguing that you can't make a logical case that this is wrong without some outside evidence of objective opinions. More simply: I was saying that it is subjective if we take your perspective here. I'm not arguing with that. I'm asking why we should feel that we can make a logical case based on premises that are pure opinion and consider that valid reasoning.
In my view, it would be better to just present it for what it is: an opinion with absolutely no logical or evidential support.

Also, is there any selection process for which opinions are acceptable? If so, what is this process? If not, could we not simply call the conclusion an opinion and skip the logic without any contradiction of the system you present?

Mostly popularity. There was a time in this country when most people thought owning another human being was perfectly fine and defended it with the Bible. Lots of people supported it, therefore it was legal. As the prevailing opinion changed, it stopped being legal and we even fought a war over it.

This doesn't address my question. I'm not asking about how ideas of morality change - I was asking why you feel the need to bother with logic. If you answer was meant to infer that logic is impressive - and therefore sways popular opinion, I don't see that it is any more tenable than clever slogans and PR campaigns.
If that is your position, fair enough, but it wouldn't make sense to then claim that your morality is based in logic.

However, was slavery moral while it was legal and then became immoral? Or was it always immoral and they were just stupid? Or is it always moral and today we're just deluded? For those people who claim objective, unchanging morality, it's an uphill battle to prove that any moral precept that has changed was either moral or immoral, or that anything we hold as moral today really is because maybe in the future our opinions will change.

I personally believe in objective morality, but claim directly that our opinions about it will change in the future. I don't see the contradiction, in that I see the fact of it and opinions about it as being separate entirely.

It seems that the idea that there is no objective morality leads us much faster to instant "wins" (through claiming a simple opinion that this or that thing is "good" or "bad") than the idea that we have to consider the idea that an objective morality exists, study it, and make certain that our ideas are logically consistent both internally and with what we know of it.

This is the fallacy of the appeal to consequences. You are arguing that because you don't like where one side potentially leads, it must be false.

I didn't write this as a case for objective ethics, and will not attempt that case here. I wrote that in response to your claim that belief in objective morality was based in a desire for instant wins. My comment here is a valid response to that particular claim, but, if you are retracting such a claim, then I agree that it would not be a valid response to the idea that objective morals don't exist.

Lastly, and most significantly, on what grounds would you attempt to convince others that any sort of behavior ought to be stopped if you admit from the outset that your own case is based simply on personal opinion, no more valid than theirs?

Obviously by trying to change their opinions about the subject matter. Validity means nothing in public opinion, look at some of the absurd laws that get passed in this country because the public has been convinced of something entirely ridiculous. It happens every day. There is no "absolutely true" position, just one that people will cling to. The goal, at least as far as I'm concerned, is to make that position one that is logically defensible and supportable by actual evidence if at all possible.

You seem to take the position in the first half of this paragraph that this is all simply a matter of opinion, and that you are simply playing a PR game to sway the public in a particular direction. In the second half of it, however, you suddenly introduce logic, seeming to imply that there is somehow a position on morality that can be reached via logic. I don't see how this can be unless you agree that there is some objectively valid ethic that could ever be reached through logic. As you do not - the only point of using logic I can imagine is that you happen to personally think it sounds impressive, even though it is useless on a matter of opinion.
Essentially, my question would be: how do you make one opinion more "logically defensible and supportable" than another?

[chatfouz]

you can't say banning religious items from schools does not target muslims and jews. In christianity you are not expected to wear anything. So its no big deal to take off your cross. But to a muslim girl or jew to remove the scarf or hat is a big deal. It is like if a law was passed that no one was to drink alcohol on sunday, all the churches that use wine would be up in arms. but the churches who use juice see no problem with it...

School are for education. Teach the subject matter. You don't have to like the other student's beliefs or viewpoints. Thats part of life. The freedom of expression of students is important.

[Cephus]

Regardless of my thoughts on this, it is not a response to my comments above. If we are "justifying what we already think ought to be done" then, indeed, we already have an idea about how things would be better. Else, why would those laws that people obey out of fear, or any other reason, exist at all?
You are free to call it subjective, but one can't say that we deal with issues without an idea (whether subjective or objective) about how things ought to be. The only difference is that a subjective idea is not defensible.

We all have ideas about how things ought to be better, but those represent many different ideas, not a single, ultimate proposition. Our individual ideas are shaped by how we're raised, our social and economic standing, our cultural or sub-cultural positions, our beliefs, our desires, etc. Therefore there isn't a single standard to which everyone ought to objectively conform. It is an indisputable fact that there are many, many different ideas about how we ought to act, what we ought to do, what we ought to believe, etc. in the world. There isn't a single, absolute, undeniable correct position to which everyone aspires. If there is a position that is absolutely not defensible, given the evidence we see around us every day, it is that morality is objective.

Personally, I don't know anyone who argues in favor of objective morality on the grounds that ideas about it are unchanged throughout history. To be sure, I do not.
As such, I don't see any validity in the idea that ideas about morality of various cultures is in any way the test for the existence of objective ethics. Nor have I heard any legitimate philosopher make that case.

Because it isn't a case that can logically or rationally be made. It's the same as claiming that everyone has an invisible, intangible gnome living on their shoulders that cannot be detected in any way, but which whispers in their ear and influences their actions. It's an absurd claim, based on no evidence, based on no logic, which must be held on faith because it cannot be believed any other way.

So if you don't like the evidence in front of your eyes that there is no such thing as objective morality, why don't you give me a list of the evidence you have that has convinced you of that claim? And no, religious beliefs don't count.

I don't know how the French have "the right" under the idea that all concepts about morality and human rights are subjective. Clearly they have the power to do so, and I suppose there is nothing in a nihilistic paradigm which would suggest that you should care about people with whom you don't interact.
The only real objection I would have (other than point out that I'm not a nihilist myself) is with comments you have made in the past encouraging others to be disgusted by "bad" events that were centered around religion when those things have no more to do with our lives than French laws have to do with yours.
You are certainly allowed to make such comments, but I don't personally feel that they are consistent with your views here.

The problem is, "right" is a word that's hard to get away from in this discussion, but which has different contexts. Like "faith" and "belief", people tend to attach a single personally-favored meaning to it to the exclusion of all other, so perhaps I should have said the French have the "ability" to do so, which clearly they do. They can define within their society what rights people have and what rights people do not have, ultimately based on the will of the people.

And will you stop with the nihilistic nonsense? You seem incapable of comprehending that there is a vast middleground between "everything comes from some religious father figure" and "there is absolutely nothing." Life is not meaningless, we ourselves give our own lives meaning and purpose. It doesn't require any god(s), but it certainly isn't nihilism.

Why would this not apply equally well to purpose in life?

Who says it doesn't? There is no ultimate purpose to life, we are left to determine, for ourselves, what we want the purpose of our own lives to be.

This statement directly contradicts the one above, unless by "bad" you only mean something that most people don't happen to like.
If that is the case, however, you aren't making a logical case, but merely appealing to preferences. Fair enough, but that brings us back to my claim above that we would be trying to base a "logical" conclusion on premises that are nothing more than opinion.

Bad describes something with negative connotations. It is subjective to be sure, a sociopath might entirely disagree that widespread slaughter in the streets is a bad thing, but to the vast majority of people, such arguments may have weight. Most people, outside of the suicidal, don't want to die. It stands to reason that if you live in a society of people who don't want to die, that killing them would be something negative to do, especially because they may retaliate and come to kill you, your friends and your family. Further, if everyone were randomly killing others, there would be little time and certainly fewer people available to work for the survival or betterment of society and social order would entirely collapse. People would starve because the farmers were dead. People would freeze because the construction workers were dead. People would succumb to the elements because the tailors were dead. Therefore, for the sake of society and the continued survival of the species, most people can agree that random killing is a bad thing and those people, as the majority, collectively determine what the laws of society are going to be and outlaw random killing.

Ultimately what happens in any society is a matter of the preference of the majority. Like it or not, majority has and always will rule and as the majority changes, so to do their preferences and this is reflected in the laws they pass and the rules they live by.

That it goes on is neither proof nor disproof of its wrongness.

Says who? See, you're simply declaring something "wrong" for the same reason that I do, because you personally don't like it. You are shaped by the same forces that shape everyone else, you simply don't acknowledge those forces. Instead, you make up an imaginary man in the sky and claim he gave you all these ideas on a silver platter. Why should any of us take you seriously?

I had just been arguing that you can't make a logical case that this is wrong without some outside evidence of objective opinions. More simply: I was saying that it is subjective if we take your perspective here. I'm not arguing with that. I'm asking why we should feel that we can make a logical case based on premises that are pure opinion and consider that valid reasoning.

The problem is, you seem personally incapable of viewing "right" or "wrong" as anything but absolute conditions, but they simply are not. If, in one house on a random street, a mother tells her children that eating cookies before dinner is wrong, but just next door, the mother sees nothing wrong with it, how is "wrong" an absolute, universal position?

So which of them is "right" and which of them is "wrong"? Both and neither. Both have the ability to set the conditions seen as "right" within their own domain and both of them are welcome to see what the other does as "wrong". But neither of them actually are "right" or "wrong" in a universal sense, since "right" and "wrong" are entirely subjective.

This doesn't address my question. I'm not asking about how ideas of morality change - I was asking why you feel the need to bother with logic. If you answer was meant to infer that logic is impressive - and therefore sways popular opinion, I don't see that it is any more tenable than clever slogans and PR campaigns.

Logic, in the sense that it can be used to convince people of an idea's efficacy. When there are enough people who accept an idea, that idea can be put into practice within the group.

I personally believe in objective morality, but claim directly that our opinions about it will change in the future. I don't see the contradiction, in that I see the fact of it and opinions about it as being separate entirely.

That makes no sense whatsoever. It's like saying "gravity is objective, but how it affects individuals can vary". It either affects everyone the same, or it isn't objective.

I didn't write this as a case for objective ethics, and will not attempt that case here.

That's fine, we both know you cannot do so.

I wrote that in response to your claim that belief in objective morality was based in a desire for instant wins. My comment here is a valid response to that particular claim, but, if you are retracting such a claim, then I agree that it would not be a valid response to the idea that objective morals don't exist.

The only one who used the term "instant wins" was you. So until you're ready to actually address what I have said, you're just wasting both of our time.

Essentially, my question would be: how do you make one opinion more "logically defensible and supportable" than another?

By appealing to evidence, of course. By using logical precepts and rational argument to either support a particular position, in order to convince people that such a position is the correct one to adopt. Is this so hard to understand?

[Jester]

We all have ideas about how things ought to be better, but those represent many different ideas, not a single, ultimate proposition. Our individual ideas are shaped by how we're raised, our social and economic standing, our cultural or sub-cultural positions, our beliefs, our desires, etc. Therefore there isn't a single standard to which everyone ought to objectively conform. It is an indisputable fact that there are many, many different ideas about how we ought to act, what we ought to do, what we ought to believe, etc. in the world. There isn't a single, absolute, undeniable correct position to which everyone aspires. If there is a position that is absolutely not defensible, given the evidence we see around us every day, it is that morality is objective.

You are certainly free to take the position that ideas about what would be better are subjective. My only contention is that this contradicts the idea that they are based on evidence, meaning that I see no reason why there is evidence regarding this subject that "we see around us every day". There is no such thing as evidence for or against a subjective idea.

Personally, I don't know anyone who argues in favor of objective morality on the grounds that ideas about it are unchanged throughout history. To be sure, I do not.
As such, I don't see any validity in the idea that ideas about morality of various cultures is in any way the test for the existence of objective ethics. Nor have I heard any legitimate philosopher make that case.

Because it isn't a case that can logically or rationally be made.

Is this to say that you agree that the beliefs of various cultures is not the test of objective morality? In that case, why mention shifts in them as part of an argument that such a thing does not exist?

So if you don't like the evidence in front of your eyes that there is no such thing as objective morality, why don't you give me a list of the evidence you have that has convinced you of that claim? And no, religious beliefs don't count.

Regardless of whether or not you will personally be impressed with my reasons for my position here, I see absolutely not "evidence in front of [my] eyes that there is no such thing as objective morality". I'd thought you'd just agreed that contrasting our thoughts on morals with the Aztecs wasn't a legitimate test of the issue, but didn't see any other evidence to support your point.

...
And will you stop with the nihilistic nonsense? You seem incapable of comprehending that there is a vast middleground between "everything comes from some religious father figure" and "there is absolutely nothing." Life is not meaningless, we ourselves give our own lives meaning and purpose. It doesn't require any god(s), but it certainly isn't nihilism.

Very well, I will not use that term to describe your beliefs. I will maintain that your claims are consistent with nihilism, but also respect your wish not to be referred to in that manner.
As for the idea that "we ourselves give our own lives meaning and purpose", is this meant as more than the idea that we can make ourselves feel better by believing that we have purpose in spite of a dearth of evidence, or do you feel that there is actual support for this claim?

Why would this not apply equally well to purpose in life?

Who says it doesn't? There is no ultimate purpose to life, we are left to determine, for ourselves, what we want the purpose of our own lives to be.

Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that this claim is founded - or that such decisions would be more than personal opinion aimed at making us feel better about the situation?

This statement directly contradicts the one above, unless by "bad" you only mean something that most people don't happen to like.
If that is the case, however, you aren't making a logical case, but merely appealing to preferences. Fair enough, but that brings us back to my claim above that we would be trying to base a "logical" conclusion on premises that are nothing more than opinion.

Bad describes something with negative connotations. It is subjective to be sure, a sociopath might entirely disagree that widespread slaughter in the streets is a bad thing, but to the vast majority of people, such arguments may have weight.

I agree that most people are swayed by moral arguments, and also agree that, in spite of this, we're actually only talking about common opinions.

Therefore, for the sake of society and the continued survival of the species, most people can agree that random killing is a bad thing and those people,

I agree with the idea that morals are very often beneficial for society as well. The problem, however, is that the idea that a prosperous society (or even its survival) is just another opinion. Nearly universally held, I agree, but that doesn't make it more than opinion.
If, however, there is nothing but opinion supporting the idea that society is good, then I don't really see a purpose, beyond personal opinion, in our lives or anything that we do. Of course, people can say "I choose to have that opinion", but we've already noted that this has no more weight than making any other statement of opinion.

Ultimately what happens in any society is a matter of the preference of the majority. Like it or not, majority has and always will rule and as the majority changes, so to do their preferences and this is reflected in the laws they pass and the rules they live by.

I agree that it is not about whether or not I like it, but it is also irrelevant to consider who has the rule (it has not always been the majority). I wouldn't argue that people who oppose the dominant moral of a culture are automatically wrong. Gandhi and Bonhoeffer come to mind.
In this light, most would agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with standing against the morals of the majority (assuming the majority were "wrong", in their eyes). The significant point here is that, even by the "majority rules" concept of morality, the majority is not the ultimate judge of morals. This would leave us with the idea that, either there are objective morals, or there are none. The middle ground of subjectivity being a valid alternative seems both contradictory and unsupported.

That it goes on is neither proof nor disproof of its wrongness.

Says who? See, you're simply declaring something "wrong" for the same reason that I do, because you personally don't like it.

I claim here that it is not proof. If you can establish that it is, please give your reasons for doing so. My thoughts, thus far, are that there are many things that happen. Some of these things people consider good and some people consider to be bad. Whether we are concerned with those opinions or not, it seems clear that something happening does not prove that it is bad.

You are shaped by the same forces that shape everyone else, you simply don't acknowledge those forces.

I don't recall denying that I've been shaped by forces. Nor do I remember claiming to be inherently different from anyone else.
Mostly, I'm wondering what my personal character has to do with this discussion.

Instead, you make up an imaginary man in the sky and claim he gave you all these ideas on a silver platter. Why should any of us take you seriously?

I've not claimed anywhere on this thread that you must take that idea seriously. If you wish to debate it, we can go elsewhere.
For the time being, however, my point is about the different viewpoints regarding ethics and purpose in life. Yes, I have claimed (implicitly if not directly) that some form of deity must exist to establish ethics or meaning in life as things of any value beyond personal opinion. That, however, is a point quite apart from the discussion over whether or not such a deity exists.
As such, I'd suggest that we stay on the point of discussing whether or not there is any secular reason to suspect that life might be meaningful, and save the debate over God's existence for a different time.

The problem is, you seem personally incapable of viewing "right" or "wrong" as anything but absolute conditions, but they simply are not. If, in one house on a random street, a mother tells her children that eating cookies before dinner is wrong, but just next door, the mother sees nothing wrong with it, how is "wrong" an absolute, universal position?

I'm not claiming that either is wrong. I'm asking whether or not there's any reason to extrapolate from the idea that people have different ideas about rightness or wrongness to conclude that there is any logical reason to conclude that any of these ideas are right.
To put it a slightly different way: If you agree that this is all a matter of opinion, what reason is there to say that we can logically conclude in favor of any of these ideas?

So which of them is "right" and which of them is "wrong"? Both and neither. Both have the ability to set the conditions seen as "right" within their own domain and both of them are welcome to see what the other does as "wrong". But neither of them actually are "right" or "wrong" in a universal sense, since "right" and "wrong" are entirely subjective.

Agreed, they are simply opinions, and are therefore not logical conclusions based on valid premises.

This doesn't address my question. I'm not asking about how ideas of morality change - I was asking why you feel the need to bother with logic. If you answer was meant to infer that logic is impressive - and therefore sways popular opinion, I don't see that it is any more tenable than clever slogans and PR campaigns.

Logic, in the sense that it can be used to convince people of an idea's efficacy. When there are enough people who accept an idea, that idea can be put into practice within the group.

So logic here, if I understand correctly, isn't really a way of discovering truth, but simply a mode of persuasion. It sounds impressive, and therefore will get us to our goals, the same a campaign slogan.
Whether or not it accurately reflects reality, or is otherwise any better than an equally persuasive campaign based on deceptive and silly claims, does not seem to be addressed here.

I personally believe in objective morality, but claim directly that our opinions about it will change in the future. I don't see the contradiction, in that I see the fact of it and opinions about it as being separate entirely.

That makes no sense whatsoever. It's like saying "gravity is objective, but how it affects individuals can vary". It either affects everyone the same, or it isn't objective.

Rather, I was saying that gravity is objective, but that people's ideas about gravity will change over time.
The idea that objective ethics do, in fact, exist, does not remotely preclude the possibility that ethical positions will change anymore than the idea that gravity's existence precludes the fact that human ideas about what it is will change.

I didn't write this as a case for objective ethics, and will not attempt that case here.

That's fine, we both know you cannot do so.

Whether or not you personally feel that you will be convinced by my reasoning is not relevant to the point. The fact is that there is much debate over this issue. If you cannot accept the claim that there are intelligent people and arguments on both sides of it, then please try to accept that we are not discussing it here and keep this kind of commentary to yourself.

I wrote that in response to your claim that belief in objective morality was based in a desire for instant wins. My comment here is a valid response to that particular claim, but, if you are retracting such a claim, then I agree that it would not be a valid response to the idea that objective morals don't exist.

The only one who used the term "instant wins" was you. So until you're ready to actually address what I have said, you're just wasting both of our time.

From post 13 (emphasis added):

Now you can argue whether or not you think that should have been true, but it takes more than "it says so in my book" to do it. It takes a lot more than making what you think is an authoratative claim and then resting on your laurels. It takes arguing for or against an idea, based on the merits, or lack thereof, of the idea itself. It requires logic, evidence and reason and it is not something that you can present that's automatically going to stand the test of time, just because you want it to. "Moral" and "immoral" have no objective basis, they are just ideas that people like or dislike, based on their own subjective interpretation, they really don't mean anything. People are looking for instant "I win!" answers that they never have to think about again, but reality, no matter how much people might like it to, just doesn't work that way.

If you are retracting the statement that people are using the logic "it says so in my book" as a means of "instant 'I win!' answers", or wish to clarify that you agree with me that the idea that morality is simply opinion makes claims of instant wins even easier to make, then I have no argument on this point.
Otherwise, I will maintain that it is clear that it is this claim to which my comments about instant wins were directed. I have never made the claim that the ease of such claims under moral relativity is evidence of its falsehood.

Essentially, my question would be: how do you make one opinion more "logically defensible and supportable" than another?

By appealing to evidence, of course. By using logical precepts and rational argument to either support a particular position, in order to convince people that such a position is the correct one to adopt. Is this so hard to understand?

Not hard at all, but it does not address my point. To try again:
How do you support a position with logic when you admit from the outset that it is simply an opinion? How is an opinion supported with logic?
I personally hold the opinion that classic rock is "better" than country music, but would not claim that I can support that opinion with logical precepts and rational argument, specifically, because it is an opinion. I would not say that I can make a logical case that my position is "the correct one to adopt".
In the hopes that this has made my position more clear, on what grounds do you argue that an opinion can be supported with logic?

[Cephus]

You are certainly free to take the position that ideas about what would be better are subjective. My only contention is that this contradicts the idea that they are based on evidence, meaning that I see no reason why there is evidence regarding this subject that "we see around us every day". There is no such thing as evidence for or against a subjective idea.

There's all sorts of evidence that can be used to bolster subjective positions, what are you talking about? Have you ever been part of a serious debate? Both sides present evidence to support their claims and then attempt to tear down the evidence of the other side. Just because evidence is not proof doesn't mean it isn't useful. We do see variations in the subjective morals and ethics of various human cultures every day, yet you don't want to admit that they actually mean something. It's like claiming the sun is purple polka-dotted and just because you can look up and see that it's yellow doesn't change anything.

Is this to say that you agree that the beliefs of various cultures is not the test of objective morality? In that case, why mention shifts in them as part of an argument that such a thing does not exist?

No, it's proof against objective morality. If there were such a thing as objective morality, a position that morals are somehow universal and absolute, then they ought to be supported by all peoples everywhere, even those who do not subscribe to you particular religious beliefs. The fact that they do not, even in cultures which are ostensibly Christian, shows that even Christianity doesn't take the idea of objective morality seriously.

If you have to hold people down to the ground so that "gravity" looks better, then you ought to be rethinking your ideas about gravity.

Regardless of whether or not you will personally be impressed with my reasons for my position here, I see absolutely not "evidence in front of [my] eyes that there is no such thing as objective morality". I'd thought you'd just agreed that contrasting our thoughts on morals with the Aztecs wasn't a legitimate test of the issue, but didn't see any other evidence to support your point.

If you can't even articulate your own reasons for buying into it, why would you expect anyone else to? You certainly haven't presented any evidence to support yourself, you haven't given a single logical argument for why anyone ought to take your claim seriously, now you refuse to even explain why you think it's valid. So... why are we even having this discussion if you're so ashamed of your own beliefs?

I will maintain that your claims are consistent with nihilism, but also respect your wish not to be referred to in that manner.

You can maintain anything you please but that doesn't make it so. The only thing in a logical discussion that matters is what you can defend and support and so far, you're not doing a whole lot of either.

As for the idea that "we ourselves give our own lives meaning and purpose", is this meant as more than the idea that we can make ourselves feel better by believing that we have purpose in spite of a dearth of evidence, or do you feel that there is actual support for this claim?

Which evidence might that be? Steven Hawking, a man condemned to life in a wheelchair, has given himself the purpose of discovering the truth about the universe and in so doing, has lived far, far beyond his life expectancy. The fact is, people every day give their own lives meaning, but you choose to turn a blind eye to it, instead choosing to believe in an imaginary man in the sky. When do you think you'll be presenting evidence to support that?

I personally hold the opinion that classic rock is "better" than country music, but would not claim that I can support that opinion with logical precepts and rational argument, specifically, because it is an opinion.

Can you not give reasons why you think that way? Can you not come up with examples and evidence that have convinced you of that? Could you not defend your position against others? If your opinions are just blind assertions of individual enjoyment, based on nothing but primal emotion, then sure, opinions are pointless. Most rational people, however, can and do go farther.