Total Posts:83|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do laws imply authority?

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 1:41:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It is generally thought of in life that laws are authoritatively based. This can be seen in the government, family life and other aspects. But my question is, can it be established that all laws imply authority? Or do some laws simply exist? In the more metaphysical sense, we find the moral argument for God follows these lines, but if we establish the proposition that all laws do imply authority, then we can do more than that. Most people deny the moral argument based on the objection that objective moral laws do not exist. However, most everyone agrees that objective laws of logic exist. If laws do indeed imply authority then only a being such as God could account for the laws of logic. Therefore, do laws always imply authority and if so, would this not point to God?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 1:50:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 1:41:45 PM, phantom wrote:
It is generally thought of in life that laws are authoritatively based. This can be seen in the government, family life and other aspects. But my question is, can it be established that all laws imply authority? Or do some laws simply exist? In the more metaphysical sense, we find the moral argument for God follows these lines, but if we establish the proposition that all laws do imply authority, then we can do more than that. Most people deny the moral argument based on the objection that objective moral laws do not exist. However, most everyone agrees that objective laws of logic exist. If laws do indeed imply authority then only a being such as God could account for the laws of logic. Therefore, do laws always imply authority and if so, would this not point to God?

Moral laws do. Laws of science do not.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 2:06:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A law in which we have a choice in breaking and a duty not to imply authority. What gives any a law strength is that a being establishes a duty to obey it. If you don't have a duty against breaking the law, then nothing suggests that an authority was responsible for creating the law. On the other hand, laws you don't have a choice in breaking have no duty value either. So an authority isn't implied.

Laws of logic contain no duties, and laws of science are inviolable. So I don't think that either would imply authority
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 2:10:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 1:41:45 PM, phantom wrote:
It is generally thought of in life that laws are authoritatively based. This can be seen in the government, family life and other aspects. But my question is, can it be established that all laws imply authority? Or do some laws simply exist? In the more metaphysical sense, we find the moral argument for God follows these lines, but if we establish the proposition that all laws do imply authority, then we can do more than that. Most people deny the moral argument based on the objection that objective moral laws do not exist. However, most everyone agrees that objective laws of logic exist. If laws do indeed imply authority then only a being such as God could account for the laws of logic. Therefore, do laws always imply authority and if so, would this not point to God?

It might depend upon the very field the law applies and in fact how it is characterized that can lend, in the very act of pervading or being applied.

As Ore_Ele stated, one such example is the scientific law, which does not imply authority by describing mechanisms and processes, but instead is often formulated based on frequent observations, especially in terms of relationships, mathematical or even in terms of correlation.

In other words, such laws do not imply authority rather than simply an observed, constant phenomenon confirmed and applicable by specific conditions observed in or without an experiment.

)
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 2:15:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 2:06:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
laws of science are inviolable.

*but not universal in application either. Hehehe...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 2:29:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 2:06:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
A law in which we have a choice in breaking and a duty not to imply authority. What gives any a law strength is that a being establishes a duty to obey it. If you don't have a duty against breaking the law, then nothing suggests that an authority was responsible for creating the law. On the other hand, laws you don't have a choice in breaking have no duty value either. So an authority isn't implied.

Laws of logic contain no duties, and laws of science are inviolable. So I don't think that either would imply authority

Moral laws fundamentally differ, science can tell us what is the case, yet morals involve what ought to be the case- Science is indifferent to morality, it created the atom bomb as well as vaccines.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 2:31:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 2:29:01 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/7/2012 2:06:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
A law in which we have a choice in breaking and a duty not to imply authority. What gives any a law strength is that a being establishes a duty to obey it. If you don't have a duty against breaking the law, then nothing suggests that an authority was responsible for creating the law. On the other hand, laws you don't have a choice in breaking have no duty value either. So an authority isn't implied.

Laws of logic contain no duties, and laws of science are inviolable. So I don't think that either would imply authority

Moral laws fundamentally differ, science can tell us what is the case, yet morals involve what ought to be the case- Science is indifferent to morality, it created the atom bomb as well as vaccines.

That's what I was saying
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 2:35:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 2:29:01 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/7/2012 2:06:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
A law in which we have a choice in breaking and a duty not to imply authority. What gives any a law strength is that a being establishes a duty to obey it. If you don't have a duty against breaking the law, then nothing suggests that an authority was responsible for creating the law. On the other hand, laws you don't have a choice in breaking have no duty value either. So an authority isn't implied.

Laws of logic contain no duties, and laws of science are inviolable. So I don't think that either would imply authority

Moral laws fundamentally differ, science can tell us what is the case, yet morals involve what ought to be the case- Science is indifferent to morality, it created the atom bomb as well as vaccines.

Lulz.

Science is not "indifferent" to morality. Science is justification for morality.

So strange, that people so often appeal to higher thinking to justify lower thinking. You are responsible for yourself, whether you accept normative social expectations or not.

Well, news flash. Morality is actually the only way we can rationalize fitting a given behavioral framework conducive to cooperation -- which is the only way we'll survive -- without relying on a given authority. It just so happens that most people lack the accountability to maintain themselves and behave without authority.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 2:37:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 1:50:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/7/2012 1:41:45 PM, phantom wrote:
It is generally thought of in life that laws are authoritatively based. This can be seen in the government, family life and other aspects. But my question is, can it be established that all laws imply authority? Or do some laws simply exist? In the more metaphysical sense, we find the moral argument for God follows these lines, but if we establish the proposition that all laws do imply authority, then we can do more than that. Most people deny the moral argument based on the objection that objective moral laws do not exist. However, most everyone agrees that objective laws of logic exist. If laws do indeed imply authority then only a being such as God could account for the laws of logic. Therefore, do laws always imply authority and if so, would this not point to God?

Moral laws do. Laws of science do not.

That's completely false.

In fact, I'd say that our sense of morality is proportionate to our scientific advancement, to a degree.

Either way, every manifestation of morality is just as enduring as every manifestatin of scientific advancement.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 2:48:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 2:37:30 PM, Ren wrote:
At 7/7/2012 1:50:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/7/2012 1:41:45 PM, phantom wrote:
It is generally thought of in life that laws are authoritatively based. This can be seen in the government, family life and other aspects. But my question is, can it be established that all laws imply authority? Or do some laws simply exist? In the more metaphysical sense, we find the moral argument for God follows these lines, but if we establish the proposition that all laws do imply authority, then we can do more than that. Most people deny the moral argument based on the objection that objective moral laws do not exist. However, most everyone agrees that objective laws of logic exist. If laws do indeed imply authority then only a being such as God could account for the laws of logic. Therefore, do laws always imply authority and if so, would this not point to God?

Moral laws do. Laws of science do not.

That's completely false.

In fact, I'd say that our sense of morality is proportionate to our scientific advancement, to a degree.

Either way, every manifestation of morality is just as enduring as every manifestatin of scientific advancement.

lol, morals are entirely subjective. Gravity, not so much.

You can present any moral standard that you wish, but you must either "choose" to follow it, or be forced by some authority figure to follow it.

Even the most common things, such as "rape and murder are wrong" are merely abstract thoughts that we've created. They don't exist outside of our minds (as opposed to various scientific laws) and so, do not exist in the real world. We try to impose them into the real world by using real world force to enforce them (punishments for violating them).

As someone else said, it is the difference between "is" and "ought."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 2:52:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 2:31:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/7/2012 2:29:01 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/7/2012 2:06:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
A law in which we have a choice in breaking and a duty not to imply authority. What gives any a law strength is that a being establishes a duty to obey it. If you don't have a duty against breaking the law, then nothing suggests that an authority was responsible for creating the law. On the other hand, laws you don't have a choice in breaking have no duty value either. So an authority isn't implied.

Laws of logic contain no duties, and laws of science are inviolable. So I don't think that either would imply authority

Moral laws fundamentally differ, science can tell us what is the case, yet morals involve what ought to be the case- Science is indifferent to morality, it created the atom bomb as well as vaccines.

That's what I was saying

K.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 2:59:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 2:35:24 PM, Ren wrote:
At 7/7/2012 2:29:01 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/7/2012 2:06:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
A law in which we have a choice in breaking and a duty not to imply authority. What gives any a law strength is that a being establishes a duty to obey it. If you don't have a duty against breaking the law, then nothing suggests that an authority was responsible for creating the law. On the other hand, laws you don't have a choice in breaking have no duty value either. So an authority isn't implied.

Laws of logic contain no duties, and laws of science are inviolable. So I don't think that either would imply authority

Moral laws fundamentally differ, science can tell us what is the case, yet morals involve what ought to be the case- Science is indifferent to morality, it created the atom bomb as well as vaccines.

Lulz.

Science is not "indifferent" to morality. Science is justification for morality.

How strange you would think that. How can can an is justify an ought? It seems that only a moral value can justify a moral duty. But where in that scheme does science lie? If anything science can give us a better understanding of certain implications of moral decisions, but it doesn't seem it has any justifying power.

So strange, that people so often appeal to higher thinking to justify lower thinking. You are responsible for yourself, whether you accept normative social expectations or not.

Neither higher nor lower thinking I think is involved here, maybe each involve different cognitive faculties. Rationality doesn't seem to be the same faculty as morality. To equivocate them doesn't make sense.

Well, news flash. Morality is actually the only way we can rationalize fitting a given behavioral framework conducive to cooperation,

but such a Marxist approach has been shown to be completely wrong both rationally & most recently empirically (when they just found that low economic times increases social coherence rather than what the Marxist predicted, rationalism was thus vindicated by empiricism in this regard.)

Can I ask you what moral theory are you proposing here?
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 3:32:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think the laws of logic are just descriptions of the way reality behaves. It's an equivocation to draw a parallel between legal laws and logical laws. They may be superficially different but they clearly function in very different ways. You can't alter the law of identity. You can alter tax laws.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 3:57:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 3:32:14 PM, Kinesis wrote:
I think the laws of logic are just descriptions of the way reality behaves.

There are many logically possible worlds that aren't a reality. You're confusing physical law with logical law.

But I agree with your distinction on legal vs logical laws.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 4:12:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 2:48:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/7/2012 2:37:30 PM, Ren wrote:
At 7/7/2012 1:50:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/7/2012 1:41:45 PM, phantom wrote:
It is generally thought of in life that laws are authoritatively based. This can be seen in the government, family life and other aspects. But my question is, can it be established that all laws imply authority? Or do some laws simply exist? In the more metaphysical sense, we find the moral argument for God follows these lines, but if we establish the proposition that all laws do imply authority, then we can do more than that. Most people deny the moral argument based on the objection that objective moral laws do not exist. However, most everyone agrees that objective laws of logic exist. If laws do indeed imply authority then only a being such as God could account for the laws of logic. Therefore, do laws always imply authority and if so, would this not point to God?

Moral laws do. Laws of science do not.

That's completely false.

In fact, I'd say that our sense of morality is proportionate to our scientific advancement, to a degree.

Either way, every manifestation of morality is just as enduring as every manifestatin of scientific advancement.

lol, morals are entirely subjective. Gravity, not so much.

That's interesting -- what do you mean by that? Do you mean that gravity is something that is emitted by everything?

Well, it's not. Photons, for example, do not emit gravity.

Or, are you saying that gravity always behaves the same, and context is irrelevant?

Well, that's not true, either. Gravity is entirely contingent on context -- the spacial configuration of everything within that plane. Gravity in a black hole does not act the same as gravity in a vacuum, neither of which act the same as gravity on a planet.

Perhaps, you mean that gravity is immutable?

Well, it isn't Gravity can indeed be manipulated as well as artificially produced.

So, what do you mean that morality is subjective and gravity is not?

Well, perhaps you're indicating that humans can exist without humanity, whereas matter cannot exist without gravity.

That, once again, is false. Morality is our means of cooperating. It is the positive decision to cooperate with others -- work alongside or synergistically with others to subside or fulfill a goal. That is literally what laws, rules, and morality are. Humans cannot exist without cooperation. They would die out. Therefore, where there is humanity, there is cooperation. Where there is cooperation, there is gravity.

Last try -- let's say you're saying that our current conception of morality is subject to change, whereas our conception of gravity is not. Surely, you can't believe this to be true. Gravity has several interpretations right now, and they don't all coincide. Either way, I wonder how sophisticated your conception of gravity is, to be making such sweeping claims.

You can present any moral standard that you wish, but you must either "choose" to follow it, or be forced by some authority figure to follow it.

...uh huh...

Even the most common things, such as "rape and murder are wrong" are merely abstract thoughts that we've created.

So are numbers? :\

But, like numbers, they can be applied functionally to reality in both predictable and advantageous ways.

They don't exist outside of our minds (as opposed to various scientific laws)

Once again, that is false. A law is a law, and every single one of them are abstractions. Science attempts to explain fragments of reality. It is not immutable truth forever, and it is not comprehensive by any means.

and so, do not exist in the real world. We try to impose them into the real world by using real world force to enforce them (punishments for violating them).

Like science.

As someone else said, it is the difference between "is" and "ought."

The difference between "is" and "ought" is one's position in time in relation to an action.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 4:16:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 1:50:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/7/2012 1:41:45 PM, phantom wrote:
It is generally thought of in life that laws are authoritatively based. This can be seen in the government, family life and other aspects. But my question is, can it be established that all laws imply authority? Or do some laws simply exist? In the more metaphysical sense, we find the moral argument for God follows these lines, but if we establish the proposition that all laws do imply authority, then we can do more than that. Most people deny the moral argument based on the objection that objective moral laws do not exist. However, most everyone agrees that objective laws of logic exist. If laws do indeed imply authority then only a being such as God could account for the laws of logic. Therefore, do laws always imply authority and if so, would this not point to God?

Moral laws do. Laws of science do not.

I'm not sure that's exactly true. Yes, moral laws imply authority, but I think laws of science do, too. After all, laws against speeding are not based on morality, they're there for the safety of the country's citizens and they imply an authority to set the law in motion and carry it out. I think laws of science are the same. I could be wrong, but I don't think science can answer *why* a scientific law is the way it is, only *that* the law is in effect. I think laws of science also point to an authority who sets it in place and carries it out.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 4:20:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 2:59:45 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

How strange you would think that. How can can an is justify an ought?

With what is. It's called forethought. It isn't even hard to accomplish, much less is it difficult to conceive.

It seems that only a moral value can justify a moral duty.

That doesn't make sense. One justifies using facts. Morality is justified through reality. If it weren't, then it wouldn't be applicable to reality.

But where in that scheme does science lie? If anything science can give us a better understanding of certain implications of moral decisions, but it doesn't seem it has any justifying power.

I don't understand what you mean by this. What exactly do you consider science, and why do you think it only applies to certain aspects of reality? You make science sound like a much weaker, much more limited subject than it is.

So strange, that people so often appeal to higher thinking to justify lower thinking. You are responsible for yourself, whether you accept normative social expectations or not.

Neither higher nor lower thinking I think is involved here, maybe each involve different cognitive faculties. Rationality doesn't seem to be the same faculty as morality. To equivocate them doesn't make sense.

Depending on analysis and justification is higher thinking, whereas depending on intuition and opinion is lower thinking. Rationality is morality. In fact, morality is one of the main justifications for rationality. So, it's not an equivocation in the least bit.

Well, news flash. Morality is actually the only way we can rationalize fitting a given behavioral framework conducive to cooperation,

but such a Marxist approach has been shown to be completely wrong both rationally & most recently empirically (when they just found that low economic times increases social coherence rather than what the Marxist predicted, rationalism was thus vindicated by empiricism in this regard.)

Okay, first -- Marxist approach? Elaborate on what you mean by that.

And, what are you saying, here? What are "low economic times," who are "they," what was considered an "increase in social coherence," and what do you consider "rationalism?"

Can I ask you what moral theory are you proposing here?

My own.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 4:45:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 4:20:05 PM, Ren wrote:
At 7/7/2012 2:59:45 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

How strange you would think that. How can can an is justify an ought?

With what is. It's called forethought. It isn't even hard to accomplish, much less is it difficult to conceive.

I understand what forethought is & its application, but you still haven't answered my question. Simply put, rationalizing gets you to a descriptive ontology whereas moral thinking gets you to a prescriptive ontology. This difference must be reconciled on your view, which would seemingly involve a sort of contra-law of identity.

It seems that only a moral value can justify a moral duty.

That doesn't make sense.

Give it some forethought. ;-)

One justifies using facts. Morality is justified through reality. If it weren't, then it wouldn't be applicable to reality.

Right, what I'm saying is they involve two distinct categorical facts, moral facts are prescriptive & rational facts are descriptive.

But where in that scheme does science lie? If anything science can give us a better understanding of certain implications of moral decisions, but it doesn't seem it has any justifying power.

I don't understand what you mean by this. What exactly do you consider science, and why do you think it only applies to certain aspects of reality? You make science sound like a much weaker, much more limited subject than it is.

Part in parcel of the problem of demarcating between what science is & isn't involves the fact that we have necessary but not sufficient criteria for counting something as science. One things for sure though, science describes the world, it doesn't attempt to prescribe the world. That would be moral epistemology.

So strange, that people so often appeal to higher thinking to justify lower thinking. You are responsible for yourself, whether you accept normative social expectations or not.

Neither higher nor lower thinking I think is involved here, maybe each involve different cognitive faculties. Rationality doesn't seem to be the same faculty as morality. To equivocate them doesn't make sense.

Depending on analysis and justification is higher thinking, whereas depending on intuition and opinion is lower thinking. Rationality is morality. In fact, morality is one of the main justifications for rationality. So, it's not an equivocation in the least bit.

Oh I agree with you there, thought you were trying to say something different. But I disagree that rationality is morality, these are two separate things since, as I've explained, rationality obtains an IS & morality obtains an OUGHT. Let's illuminate this difference by you explaining to me just HOW morality justifies rationality as you assert.

Well, news flash. Morality is actually the only way we can rationalize fitting a given behavioral framework conducive to cooperation,

but such a Marxist approach has been shown to be completely wrong both rationally & most recently empirically (when they just found that low economic times increases social coherence rather than what the Marxist predicted, rationalism was thus vindicated by empiricism in this regard.)

Okay, first -- Marxist approach? Elaborate on what you mean by that.

Marx took the same approach you are to morality, then fixed an anti-real moral theory exemplifying economics in order to hold society together rather than a value system (materialistic vs metaphysic).

And, what are you saying, here? What are "low economic times," who are "they," what was considered an "increase in social coherence," and what do you consider "rationalism?"

Rationalism involves the cannons of logic, morality involves an inherent value or dignity imposed on yourself and fellow persons.

Can I ask you what moral theory are you proposing here?

My own.

I think it needs work, philosophically. But I think we're in agreement on some things.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:01:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 4:45:15 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

I understand what forethought is & its application, but you still haven't answered my question. Simply put, rationalizing gets you to a descriptive ontology whereas moral thinking gets you to a prescriptive ontology. This difference must be reconciled on your view, which would seemingly involve a sort of contra-law of identity.

Rationalizing results in a conclusion just as prescriptive as morality does. No one can predict the future.

It seems that only a moral value can justify a moral duty.

That doesn't make sense.

Give it some forethought. ;-)

No. By the definition of the terms you're using, it is a nonsensical statement. However, it is nonsensical in the sense of its applicability to everything proceeding that statement -- the context to which it applies. The only way that you could have avoided this nonsensicality is through forethought.

One justifies using facts. Morality is justified through reality. If it weren't, then it wouldn't be applicable to reality.

Right, what I'm saying is they involve two distinct categorical facts, moral facts are prescriptive & rational facts are descriptive.

Lol, those are arbitrary distinctions.

But where in that scheme does science lie? If anything science can give us a better understanding of certain implications of moral decisions, but it doesn't seem it has any justifying power.

I don't understand what you mean by this. What exactly do you consider science, and why do you think it only applies to certain aspects of reality? You make science sound like a much weaker, much more limited subject than it is.

Part in parcel of the problem of demarcating between what science is & isn't involves the fact that we have necessary but not sufficient criteria for counting something as science. One things for sure though, science describes the world, it doesn't attempt to prescribe the world. That would be moral epistemology.

Lol, what are you even saying, here? There are scientific tenets, laws, parameters, etc, all of which are prescriptive, as they cannot be applied before an action takes place. They are, in essence, the morality of science.

So strange, that people so often appeal to higher thinking to justify lower thinking. You are responsible for yourself, whether you accept normative social expectations or not.

Neither higher nor lower thinking I think is involved here, maybe each involve different cognitive faculties. Rationality doesn't seem to be the same faculty as morality. To equivocate them doesn't make sense.

Depending on analysis and justification is higher thinking, whereas depending on intuition and opinion is lower thinking. Rationality is morality. In fact, morality is one of the main justifications for rationality. So, it's not an equivocation in the least bit.

Oh I agree with you there, thought you were trying to say something different. But I disagree that rationality is morality, these are two separate things since, as I've explained, rationality obtains an IS & morality obtains an OUGHT. Let's illuminate this difference by you explaining to me just HOW morality justifies rationality as you assert.

That, once again, is false. Science asserts many "oughts," such as how one ought to obtain, record, and present data. :\

Well, news flash. Morality is actually the only way we can rationalize fitting a given behavioral framework conducive to cooperation,

but such a Marxist approach has been shown to be completely wrong both rationally & most recently empirically (when they just found that low economic times increases social coherence rather than what the Marxist predicted, rationalism was thus vindicated by empiricism in this regard.)

Okay, first -- Marxist approach? Elaborate on what you mean by that.

Marx took the same approach you are to morality, then fixed an anti-real moral theory exemplifying economics in order to hold society together rather than a value system (materialistic vs metaphysic).

And, what are you saying, here? What are "low economic times," who are "they," what was considered an "increase in social coherence," and what do you consider "rationalism?"

Rationalism involves the cannons of logic, morality involves an inherent value or dignity imposed on yourself and fellow persons.

Can I ask you what moral theory are you proposing here?

My own.

I think it needs work, philosophically. But I think we're in agreement on some things.

Lmfao.

I'm glad I can at least partially compare to your indisputable genius.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 5:14:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 4:45:15 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

Marx took the same approach you are to morality, then fixed an anti-real moral theory exemplifying economics in order to hold society together rather than a value system (materialistic vs metaphysic).

Hm. That's an interesting interpretation, but it's off mark.

First, Karl Marx. Lol. Karl Marx was a determinist, wasn't he? Maybe not... I know that "bla bla determinism" comes up a lot in his work as well as analysis of it. More relevantly, I'm pretty sure he was a nihilist... he seemed to agree with you -- that morality and institutions meant to enforce it are human contrivances.

Well, I don't agree with that in the least. I consider it an equivocation.

My conception of morality, succinctly, is that there is a given way to cooperate with one another (given our makeup is static, we must conform to our makeup, rather than the other way around) that is both socially and developmentally advantageous, which would maximize our ability to subside, whatever the manifestation of sustenance for our species may be.

There are several legal systems, judicial systems, religious institutions, spiritual frameworks, philosophical theories, and anthropological data that humanity has contrived or compiled in order to somehow normalize and disseminate our conceptions of what morality is ideally, sometimes using compelling, other times specious, and other time still, absurd justifications to assert these claims. However, our inability to create something that we can all agree on does not negate the necessity that we need to agree and act toward a common goal while avoiding infringing on the well being of others in order to best subside. This is why although morality in its current manifestation may be imperfect or even idiotic, morality still needs to exist, and is an essential utility among any collection of intelligent organisms or sophisticated engagement.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 7:45:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 5:01:11 PM, Ren wrote:
At 7/7/2012 4:45:15 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

I understand what forethought is & its application, but you still haven't answered my question. Simply put, rationalizing gets you to a descriptive ontology whereas moral thinking gets you to a prescriptive ontology. This difference must be reconciled on your view, which would seemingly involve a sort of contra-law of identity.

Rationalizing results in a conclusion just as prescriptive as morality does. No one can predict the future.

What you're treating as causation is really correlation my friend. Let's go more fundamental: is vs ought, wherein lies the similar identity on your view?

One justifies using facts. Morality is justified through reality. If it weren't, then it wouldn't be applicable to reality.

Right, what I'm saying is they involve two distinct categorical facts, moral facts are prescriptive & rational facts are descriptive.

Lol, those are arbitrary distinctions.

How so? Doesn't it seem obvious that moral duty is prescriptive by definition? You're going against the grain here which demands way more of an argument that what you're giving.

But where in that scheme does science lie? If anything science can give us a better understanding of certain implications of moral decisions, but it doesn't seem it has any justifying power.

I don't understand what you mean by this. What exactly do you consider science, and why do you think it only applies to certain aspects of reality? You make science sound like a much weaker, much more limited subject than it is.

Part in parcel of the problem of demarcating between what science is & isn't involves the fact that we have necessary but not sufficient criteria for counting something as science. One things for sure though, science describes the world, it doesn't attempt to prescribe the world. That would be moral epistemology.

Lol, what are you even saying, here? There are scientific tenets, laws, parameters, etc, all of which are prescriptive, as they cannot be applied before an action takes place. They are, in essence, the morality of science.

Your point here is so convoluted I don't know where to begin! Scientific laws, such as the Ideal Gas Law, are descriptive and so is consulted whenever a scientist or engineer wants to bring about some physical result. But there's nothing in PV=Nrt that dictates you SHOULD or OUGHT to follow such a law, the scientist can simply do a bad gas experiment... how would that be morally wrong?

So strange, that people so often appeal to higher thinking to justify lower thinking. You are responsible for yourself, whether you accept normative social expectations or not.

Neither higher nor lower thinking I think is involved here, maybe each involve different cognitive faculties. Rationality doesn't seem to be the same faculty as morality. To equivocate them doesn't make sense.

Depending on analysis and justification is higher thinking, whereas depending on intuition and opinion is lower thinking. Rationality is morality. In fact, morality is one of the main justifications for rationality. So, it's not an equivocation in the least bit.

Oh I agree with you there, thought you were trying to say something different. But I disagree that rationality is morality, these are two separate things since, as I've explained, rationality obtains an IS & morality obtains an OUGHT. Let's illuminate this difference by you explaining to me just HOW morality justifies rationality as you assert.

That, once again, is false. Science asserts many "oughts," such as how one ought to obtain, record, and present data. :\

Suppose I don't obtain a record in such a fashion as some of the methodologies of science dictate, would that be morally wrong? Have I taken away from someone's dignity?

Well, news flash. Morality is actually the only way we can rationalize fitting a given behavioral framework conducive to cooperation,

but such a Marxist approach has been shown to be completely wrong both rationally & most recently empirically (when they just found that low economic times increases social coherence rather than what the Marxist predicted, rationalism was thus vindicated by empiricism in this regard.)

Okay, first -- Marxist approach? Elaborate on what you mean by that.

Marx took the same approach you are to morality, then fixed an anti-real moral theory exemplifying economics in order to hold society together rather than a value system (materialistic vs metaphysic).

And, what are you saying, here? What are "low economic times," who are "they," what was considered an "increase in social coherence," and what do you consider "rationalism?"

Rationalism involves the cannons of logic, morality involves an inherent value or dignity imposed on yourself and fellow persons.

Can I ask you what moral theory are you proposing here?

My own.

I think it needs work, philosophically. But I think we're in agreement on some things.

Lmfao.

Does the notion that your view need philosophical work itself laughable? And I'm an indisputable genius?

I'm glad I can at least partially compare to your indisputable genius.

How about the default I suggest you surmise with me doesn't include perceiving my uninflected words as condescending, but rather a lend of insight. Such is my default with you actually.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 7:50:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 5:14:00 PM, Ren wrote:
At 7/7/2012 4:45:15 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

Marx took the same approach you are to morality, then fixed an anti-real moral theory exemplifying economics in order to hold society together rather than a value system (materialistic vs metaphysic).

Hm. That's an interesting interpretation, but it's off mark.

First, Karl Marx. Lol. Karl Marx was a determinist, wasn't he? Maybe not... I know that "bla bla determinism" comes up a lot in his work as well as analysis of it. More relevantly, I'm pretty sure he was a nihilist... he seemed to agree with you -- that morality and institutions meant to enforce it are human contrivances.

First, I don't agree that moral value is human contrived, I take the position that it's gradually discovered but ultimately rooted in the nature of God, the unique being to so issue moral commands which create duty for us.

Secondly, Marx proposed that human value is economically driven.

There are several legal systems, judicial systems, religious institutions, spiritual frameworks, philosophical theories, and anthropological data that humanity has contrived or compiled in order to somehow normalize and disseminate our conceptions of what morality is ideally, sometimes using compelling, other times specious, and other time still, absurd justifications to assert these claims. However, our inability to create something that we can all agree on does not negate the necessity that we need to agree and act toward a common goal while avoiding infringing on the well being of others in order to best subside. This is why although morality in its current manifestation may be imperfect or even idiotic, morality still needs to exist, and is an essential utility among any collection of intelligent organisms or sophisticated engagement.

For the most part I'm in agreement, I just don't consider logic on a par with morals, as you seem to.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 8:15:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 7:50:34 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

For the most part I'm in agreement, I just don't consider logic on a par with morals, as you seem to.

I do... I do.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 8:35:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 7:45:40 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

What you're treating as causation is really correlation my friend. Let's go more fundamental: is vs ought, wherein lies the similar identity on your view?

What is, justifies what ought. What are you doing, when you determine "ought," but considering what "is?"

One never simply considers, "well, I wonder what I ought to do," outside of any sort of context whatsoever. That is literally a situation that does not exist. This is why the "is/ought" argument is specious. It presents the "ought" question with no given context, without justifying why it is presented out of context.

"Is," on the other hand, is the context itself. What "is?" Right here, right now, and all relevant minutiae of what "right here right now" entails. It, in essence, grants context:

"What is? Therefore, I ought in order to."

How so? Doesn't it seem obvious that moral duty is prescriptive by definition? You're going against the grain here which demands way more of an argument that what you're giving.

Your point here is so convoluted I don't know where to begin! Scientific laws, such as the Ideal Gas Law, are descriptive and so is consulted whenever a scientist or engineer wants to bring about some physical result. But there's nothing in PV=Nrt that dictates you SHOULD or OUGHT to follow such a law, the scientist can simply do a bad gas experiment... how would that be morally wrong?

Lol... what is this "bad" you refer to? It wouldn't refer to an experiment resulting from a wrong methodology? Everything in PV = Nrt is an ought and a should: "PV ought to result in Nrt, thus, one should use this equivalence in order to manipulate gas," is the actual statement that equation is making. Without that understanding, there is no operative meaning to PV = Nrt. :\

Suppose I don't obtain a record in such a fashion as some of the methodologies of science dictate, would that be morally wrong? Have I taken away from someone's dignity?

Well, your views won't be respected, explored, or elaborated upon in the scientific community. I'm not sure what anyone's dignity has to do with anything, but really, ti depends on the purpose of your work. If it was for the purpose of simply tinkering, then there's no moral approach to the scientific work in the first place. The morality behind information acquisition applies when one's purpose is to share the work with the intention that it's respected, explored, and elaborated upon.

Does the notion that your view need philosophical work itself laughable? And I'm an indisputable genius?

No, but you surely didn't substantiate that assertion; and yes. I'm certainly not suggesting that you're stupid -- lol, I don't consider myself a genius. Who considers themselves a genius? :3

How about the default I suggest you surmise with me doesn't include perceiving my uninflected words as condescending, but rather a lend of insight. Such is my default with you actually.

You said that my personal philosophies on morality are convoluted and parochial. I don't necessarily consider that condescending, but of course I'm going to be derisive in response to that silliness, given you don't even present reasoning.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2012 12:01:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 8:15:04 PM, Ren wrote:
At 7/7/2012 7:50:34 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

For the most part I'm in agreement, I just don't consider logic on a par with morals, as you seem to.

I do... I do.

Oh I must... I must... (name that movie!)
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2012 12:10:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 8:35:24 PM, Ren wrote:
At 7/7/2012 7:45:40 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

What you're treating as causation is really correlation my friend. Let's go more fundamental: is vs ought, wherein lies the similar identity on your view?

What is, justifies what ought. What are you doing, when you determine "ought," but considering what "is?"

In justifying an ought we consult our moral experience of right & wrong. We don't consult our experience of logic.

One never simply considers, "well, I wonder what I ought to do," outside of any sort of context whatsoever.

Agreed, and I consider that context a moral context with which rationality is impotent.

That is literally a situation that does not exist. This is why the "is/ought" argument is specious. It presents the "ought" question with no given context, without justifying why it is presented out of context.

Please justify an example of an ought with an is only.

"Is," on the other hand, is the context itself. What "is?" Right here, right now, and all relevant minutiae of what "right here right now" entails. It, in essence, grants context:

"What is? Therefore, I ought in order to."

You're playing a semantic game now.

How so? Doesn't it seem obvious that moral duty is prescriptive by definition? You're going against the grain here which demands way more of an argument that what you're giving.

Your point here is so convoluted I don't know where to begin! Scientific laws, such as the Ideal Gas Law, are descriptive and so is consulted whenever a scientist or engineer wants to bring about some physical result. But there's nothing in PV=Nrt that dictates you SHOULD or OUGHT to follow such a law, the scientist can simply do a bad gas experiment... how would that be morally wrong?

Lol... what is this "bad" you refer to? It wouldn't refer to an experiment resulting from a wrong methodology? Everything in PV = Nrt is an ought and a should: "PV ought to result in Nrt, thus, one should use this equivalence in order to manipulate gas," is the actual statement that equation is making. Without that understanding, there is no operative meaning to PV = Nrt. :\

Again, a semantics game: I asked you to define something that is morally wrong with not following an is.

Suppose I don't obtain a record in such a fashion as some of the methodologies of science dictate, would that be morally wrong? Have I taken away from someone's dignity?

Well, your views won't be respected, explored, or elaborated upon in the scientific community. I'm not sure what anyone's dignity has to do with anything, but really, ti depends on the purpose of your work. If it was for the purpose of simply tinkering, then there's no moral approach to the scientific work in the first place. The morality behind information acquisition applies when one's purpose is to share the work with the intention that it's respected, explored, and elaborated upon.

Ah, so there we come to the vast difference of our views. Namely that you don't think human dignity exists in the is ought debate. By that language, there's nothing wrong with raping a girl who is so drugged that she'll never remember the rape or even know it. What makes it wrong on your view? ... On mine it's the taking away of her dignity, not treating her as a person with rights.

How about the default I suggest you surmise with me doesn't include perceiving my uninflected words as condescending, but rather a lend of insight. Such is my default with you actually.

You said that my personal philosophies on morality are convoluted and parochial. I don't necessarily consider that condescending, but of course I'm going to be derisive in response to that silliness, given you don't even present reasoning.

^see past responses & this one, there's a good litany of reasons for not accepting your position that has yet to be refuted.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2012 3:50:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Laws do not imply authority.

Laws, by themselves, are no more than propositions. Assume that tomorrow terrorist blow up every law enforcement agency in the country. Would "laws" suddenly disappear? Congress can pass anything it wants, but who gives a damn since there's no way to enforce them? They'd technically be "laws" but why follows Congress' laws when you can just follow "laws" in the Anarchist's Cookbook?

Laws can exist, then, without "authority."

It is only when laws gain ENFORCEABILITY that an authority becomes necessary.

Now, what criteria is necessary for an AUTHORITY?

1. Ability to recognize when an agent has transgressed a law
2. Ability to inflict negative consequences for transgression
3. Ability to monitor agents

So, for instance, let us take the case of a community of children who play freeze tag. There is nothing stopping any given child from breaking a rule and, say, "unfreezing himself."

However, children don't break the rules (in front of each other) not due to God but because the COMMUNITY ITSELF acts as an enforcing agent. The negative consequence is social ostracism. No one child acts specifically as the "policeman" or rule-enforcer.

Notice, authority to "regulate" laws can exist without any monopoly on force or even centralization of decision-making.

All that is needed to establish an enforceable social contract is a cybernetic system (action by the system causes some change in its environment and that change is fed to the system via information (feedback) that enables the system to change its behavior) with a mechanism to detect "defections." The mechanism can be anything from a group of children to the FBI to a communist community to God.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2012 4:31:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/8/2012 12:10:41 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

In justifying an ought we consult our moral experience of right & wrong. We don't consult our experience of logic.

When someone says one "ought" to do something, you don't expect justification? It's common for someone to just simply throw the word "ought" around, and people just blindly follow?! I don't understand this specious argumentation that I encounter so much regarding morality. It's preposterous to say that "ought" is an invalid word, because it doesn't suggest context. And, that context should be logic. Why wouldn't it be?! Hello, morality is a product of rationality. Rationality is a product of higher thinking.

In other words. Morality is determining the difference between right and wrong and applying that to future actions during internal deliberation. Humans determine right and wrong logically. Or rather, we check our conclusions about right, wrong, correct, incorrect, whatever, against logic. That can include empirical explanations, and deductive reasoning.

One never simply considers, "well, I wonder what I ought to do," outside of any sort of context whatsoever.

Agreed, and I consider that context a moral context with which rationality is impotent.

Lol, that's your prerogative, I suppose, but why? Why not consider it logic? Why not?! Why must it be some abstract "moral context?"

That is literally a situation that does not exist. This is why the "is/ought" argument is specious. It presents the "ought" question with no given context, without justifying why it is presented out of context.

Please justify an example of an ought with an is only.

"Is," on the other hand, is the context itself. What "is?" Right here, right now, and all relevant minutiae of what "right here right now" entails. It, in essence, grants context:

"What is? Therefore, I ought in order to."

You're playing a semantic game now.

What are you saying? How is that a semantic game?

How so? Doesn't it seem obvious that moral duty is prescriptive by definition? You're going against the grain here which demands way more of an argument that what you're giving.

Your point here is so convoluted I don't know where to begin! Scientific laws, such as the Ideal Gas Law, are descriptive and so is consulted whenever a scientist or engineer wants to bring about some physical result. But there's nothing in PV=Nrt that dictates you SHOULD or OUGHT to follow such a law, the scientist can simply do a bad gas experiment... how would that be morally wrong?

Lol... what is this "bad" you refer to? It wouldn't refer to an experiment resulting from a wrong methodology? Everything in PV = Nrt is an ought and a should: "PV ought to result in Nrt, thus, one should use this equivalence in order to manipulate gas," is the actual statement that equation is making. Without that understanding, there is no operative meaning to PV = Nrt. :\

Again, a semantics game: I asked you to define something that is morally wrong with not following an is.

Why?! Why can't it follow an is?!?!?! Why wouldn't it?!?

Suppose I don't obtain a record in such a fashion as some of the methodologies of science dictate, would that be morally wrong? Have I taken away from someone's dignity?

Well, your views won't be respected, explored, or elaborated upon in the scientific community. I'm not sure what anyone's dignity has to do with anything, but really, ti depends on the purpose of your work. If it was for the purpose of simply tinkering, then there's no moral approach to the scientific work in the first place. The morality behind information acquisition applies when one's purpose is to share the work with the intention that it's respected, explored, and elaborated upon.

Ah, so there we come to the vast difference of our views. Namely that you don't think human dignity exists in the is ought debate. By that language, there's nothing wrong with raping a girl who is so drugged that she'll never remember the rape or even know it. What makes it wrong on your view? ... On mine it's the taking away of her dignity, not treating her as a person with rights.

?

This argument doesn't make sense to me.

Dignity is someone's self-respect. It has nothing to do with someone else's respect for you.

I've already explained that a belief that cooperation is paramount underlies my overall theory. Respect for one another. Treating others as you'd ideally love to be treated. Raping someone is literally doing something they do not want you to do, by definition. Thus, it is something you ought never do. Sicko. That has substantiation, and thus, is a valid moral code.

How about the default I suggest you surmise with me doesn't include perceiving my uninflected words as condescending, but rather a lend of insight. Such is my default with you actually.

You said that my personal philosophies on morality are convoluted and parochial. I don't necessarily consider that condescending, but of course I'm going to be derisive in response to that silliness, given you don't even present reasoning.

^see past responses & this one, there's a good litany of reasons for not accepting your position that has yet to be refuted.

Well, there.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2012 4:59:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/8/2012 4:31:18 PM, Ren wrote:
At 7/8/2012 12:10:41 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

In justifying an ought we consult our moral experience of right & wrong. We don't consult our experience of logic.

When someone says one "ought" to do something, you don't expect justification? It's common for someone to just simply throw the word "ought" around, and people just blindly follow?! I don't understand this specious argumentation that I encounter so much regarding morality. It's preposterous to say that "ought" is an invalid word, because it doesn't suggest context. And, that context should be logic. Why wouldn't it be?! Hello, morality is a product of rationality. Rationality is a product of higher thinking.

In other words. Morality is determining the difference between right and wrong and applying that to future actions during internal deliberation. Humans determine right and wrong logically. Or rather, we check our conclusions about right, wrong, correct, incorrect, whatever, against logic. That can include empirical explanations, and deductive reasoning.

One never simply considers, "well, I wonder what I ought to do," outside of any sort of context whatsoever.

Agreed, and I consider that context a moral context with which rationality is impotent.

Lol, that's your prerogative, I suppose, but why? Why not consider it logic? Why not?! Why must it be some abstract "moral context?"

That is literally a situation that does not exist. This is why the "is/ought" argument is specious. It presents the "ought" question with no given context, without justifying why it is presented out of context.

Please justify an example of an ought with an is only.

"Is," on the other hand, is the context itself. What "is?" Right here, right now, and all relevant minutiae of what "right here right now" entails. It, in essence, grants context:

"What is? Therefore, I ought in order to."

You're playing a semantic game now.

What are you saying? How is that a semantic game?

How so? Doesn't it seem obvious that moral duty is prescriptive by definition? You're going against the grain here which demands way more of an argument that what you're giving.

Your point here is so convoluted I don't know where to begin! Scientific laws, such as the Ideal Gas Law, are descriptive and so is consulted whenever a scientist or engineer wants to bring about some physical result. But there's nothing in PV=Nrt that dictates you SHOULD or OUGHT to follow such a law, the scientist can simply do a bad gas experiment... how would that be morally wrong?

Lol... what is this "bad" you refer to? It wouldn't refer to an experiment resulting from a wrong methodology? Everything in PV = Nrt is an ought and a should: "PV ought to result in Nrt, thus, one should use this equivalence in order to manipulate gas," is the actual statement that equation is making. Without that understanding, there is no operative meaning to PV = Nrt. :\

Again, a semantics game: I asked you to define something that is morally wrong with not following an is.

Why?! Why can't it follow an is?!?!?! Why wouldn't it?!?

Suppose I don't obtain a record in such a fashion as some of the methodologies of science dictate, would that be morally wrong? Have I taken away from someone's dignity?

Well, your views won't be respected, explored, or elaborated upon in the scientific community. I'm not sure what anyone's dignity has to do with anything, but really, ti depends on the purpose of your work. If it was for the purpose of simply tinkering, then there's no moral approach to the scientific work in the first place. The morality behind information acquisition applies when one's purpose is to share the work with the intention that it's respected, explored, and elaborated upon.

Ah, so there we come to the vast difference of our views. Namely that you don't think human dignity exists in the is ought debate. By that language, there's nothing wrong with raping a girl who is so drugged that she'll never remember the rape or even know it. What makes it wrong on your view? ... On mine it's the taking away of her dignity, not treating her as a person with rights.

?

This argument doesn't make sense to me.

Dignity is someone's self-respect. It has nothing to do with someone else's respect for you.

I've already explained that a belief that cooperation is paramount underlies my overall theory. Respect for one another. Treating others as you'd ideally love to be treated. Raping someone is literally doing something they do not want you to do, by definition. Thus, it is something you ought never do. Sicko. That has substantiation, and thus, is a valid moral code.

How about the default I suggest you surmise with me doesn't include perceiving my uninflected words as condescending, but rather a lend of insight. Such is my default with you actually.

You said that my personal philosophies on morality are convoluted and parochial. I don't necessarily consider that condescending, but of course I'm going to be derisive in response to that silliness, given you don't even present reasoning.

^see past responses & this one, there's a good litany of reasons for not accepting your position that has yet to be refuted.

Well, there.

Does it strike you as at all odd that both myself and this poster (who have VERY different views) keep saying you are playing a semantics game?

There's the old saying that if one guy says you're drunk, punch him. If two say it, shrug it off. If three say it, give up your car keys.

This is by no means an argument. Just something to consider.