CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I wrote a longer response and deleted it just to simplify it to the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you'd have done to you. Meaning, let people live their lives in whatever way makes consenting adults happy. You'd want others to let you live your life, too.
Matthew 7:12 .. In everything .. therefore .. treat people the same way you want them to treat you ..
for this is the Law and the Prophets ... full context ....... and if you miss it just one time (regardless of how you are treated) / you've blown the entire thing / broken the Law and are deemed a sinner in need of salvation .... you see L&G;... the LAW teaches you of your sinful condition and is meant to lead you to Jesus Christ ... the ONLY salvation God has delivered from above
1) We don't have to be Christian to follow the concept. It doesn't matter which way the Bible precisely phrased it.
2) Even children books designed to inspire the concept in kids rephrase it multiple ways and quote versions of it from multiple world religions. Because it's a basic human concept, not something proprietary.
So basically, you're the child who can only understand it as the mandate from your single source. Congratulations, my 2 year old already grasps this lesson better than you do. Thanks
In fact, I wonder why some might want to argue against it. The whole constitution of marriage is a human invention, it can't prohibit us to do anything (for those who might think it intrinsically does such a thing.)
Any other argument, I can refute here.
Eg. But it's not natural! - So what? By that criteria, the entire civilisation should be disbanded. This argument is used by wannabe Cynics.
The religious text says so! - I could have a religious text say anything I want it to if I have enough power.
They want reasons to not be happy, and I'm gonna give them enough reasons that they ought to be more unhappy right now than after the things I say have taken place.
But it might as well be sophistry at that point - either way, they're generally not good enough to notice. After all, they're the haters.
Wait. For real. Are you being serious? Are you such a federalist that you have no idea that the Constitution reserves rights to the states so that they can do just that? The gradual encroachment of the federal government on state autonomy aside, the states definitely still do have differing laws. Moreover, there's no evident reason they shouldn't be allowed to.
The idea that states cannot adapt their laws to their particular circumstances and constituencies is not only impractical, but anti-democratic. Uniformity creates an unrepresentative rigidity that cannot adapt to the particular needs of the individual states. It also centralizes power away from individuals and into the hands of fewer and more inaccessible political figures.
But, of course, government exists to take power away from small sets of individuals. Else we'd be having an anarchist rule (a march of history, perhaps.)
After all, what is law created about?
If that factor remains constant (which I believe it does), then there should be a central law.
A state is hardly a small set of individuals, and it certainly doesn't represent anarchy. State centered law is still centered and still law, and you've neither explained why it is actually inferior nor addressed my analysis as to why it is preferable.
why it is actually inferior nor addressed my analysis as to why it is preferable.
Law is created based on what is right, something that doesn't change with states.
Also, the last argument meant that we can't be having a decentralised system of law, because there isn't some 'perfect level' of decentralisation. Even if there is, it wouldn't be to divide in states.
Unless this system actually has some benefits, like what ought to be right actually changes between state boundaries, I see no reason to support it.
Law is created based on what is right, something that doesn't change with states.
Law is created based on what people believe to be right, and that does change from state to state (and nation to nation). There is no absolute doctrine of justice, and even if there were it's clear that we as human beings have no idea what it is. Law is a consequence of power, and those who hold it determine what justice is. It is naive to think otherwise, and completely unsupported by the historical account of government.
The point of democracies and republics is that they be more responsive to the common constituent than other, more authoritarian regimes. The more power you consolidate away from the average person the more people you create who feel unrepresented by the government, which creates low confidence and decreased participation in democracies and republics. This is a problem I already raised, and despite your claim to have addressed it you have not. To do that you need to either explain why I am wrong about the centralization of power away from constituents being anti-democratic, or else you need to demonstrate that the harm is worth it which you haven't done either.
Also, the last argument meant that we can't be having a decentralised system of law, because there isn't some 'perfect level' of decentralisation. Even if there is, it wouldn't be to divide in states.
Here's the thing: the power has to center itself somewhere. Just asserting that it wouldn't be at the state level isn't actually an argument. No centering is going to be "perfect", merely optimal. My proposal is that the closer power centers towards the people without creating barriers for equitable participation in an organized social order, the more optimal it is. Given that numerous nations have allocated power to states for literally hundreds (if not thousands) of years without society collapsing, it is very easily deduced that centering power to the states instead of a federal government is closer to optimal than holding it at a federal level.
Moreover, if you really stick to your beliefs then you must support a single global government. That seems absurd. The geopolitics of the world simply could not withstand a rigid and unadaptive set of laws like that.
Unless this system actually has some benefits, like what ought to be right actually changes between state boundaries, I see no reason to support it.
You have not explained at all why "what is right" should or does not change between state boundaries. You have merely asserted it, repeatedly. By contrast, I have explained why flexibility and adaptability to constituencies is important to healthy governments (particularly democratic and republican ones). There is no known universal set of laws which constitute justice, so permitting diversity is not only the most reasonable course but a necessary one. A single code of law imposed upon billions of people who do not believe it represents justice would lead to open revolt and the collapse of social order; people cannot be reasonably expected to tolerate that sort of imposition over their own concept of what is right and when you get enough of them in numbers they destroy the governments and start over. That is how revolutions traditionally have happened, and the destruction that accompanies them is in the interest of very few people (e.g. war profiteers).
To do that you need to either explain why I am wrong about the centralization of power away from constituents being anti-democratic, or else you need to demonstrate that the harm is worth it which you haven't done either.
It seems that the direct Law is created based on what is right, hasn't been a satisfying answer.
those who hold it determine what justice is.
That's why we have to check against things that ought to be unlawful. Preventing leaders from becoming corrupt is the reason democracy exists.
There is no absolute doctrine of justice
Right does not mean it is rigid. Not much intellectual freedom, I presume?
Moreover, if you really stick to your beliefs then you must support a single global government.
You can say, I was waiting for you to say that. Yes, I do.
The geopolitics of the world simply could not withstand a rigid and unadaptive set of laws like that.
Not rigid. But it won't have geographical exceptions. The only possible problem is that at the top there is unchallenged power, unlike a system of many countries. Some things need to prevent corruption. So I don't unconditionally support it.
That's why we have to check against things that ought to be unlawful. Preventing leaders from becoming corrupt is the reason democracy exists.
You have missed the point. The only "ought" that exists is determined by whomever holds the power. That may leaders in government, it might be the constituents in a democratic government, or it could be any other collection of persons who situate themselves so as to have influence over the law. Who has the power is immaterial to my observation that the people who do have it are the ones who determine the law (and what is just).
If you believe that this power should rest democratically with the people, then you should be opposed to federalism because it constrains the influence the people have over their own government by consolidating power into fewer hands at the top of government. You still haven't addressed this point, and if you don't I'm just going to assume that you can't.
Right does not mean it is rigid. Not much intellectual freedom, I presume?
I have no idea what your point is here. I never said that what is right is rigid... that's your position. You think there ought to be only one version of law because there is only one version of rightness. That is rigid. That restricts individual freedom.
Not rigid. But it won't have geographical exceptions.
How can you say those right after one another and not see the contradiction? No exceptions is not flexible. It's very obviously rigid.
The only possible problem is that at the top there is unchallenged power, unlike a system of many countries. Some things need to prevent corruption. So I don't unconditionally support it.
You say this like it is not a huge problem, but it is. If all power is consolidated at the top of one global government and that power is unchallenged, as you acknowledge it would be, then there is no power left to check the exceptionally few people who now wield power over literally all the billions of other people. That's tyranny, plain and simple.
Even if those people were inexplicable exceptions to the history of tyrannical rulers, my point remains that if they instituted a single form of law over all persons without respect for complex geopolitics the system would devolve. There are simply too many widely held and contradictory views about justice across the whole world for such an authoritarian model to work.
I'm going with Kant on that one.
The categorical imperative is one of the most idiotic principles in ethics I've ever encountered, and I'm decently well-read. Why would we assume that our actions would become a universal rule even when we know for a fact that they won't? It's patently ridiculous. Moreover, it's a massive leap from the categorical imperative to a universalized law for everyone. What I think I'd want people to act like and what someone else thinks aren't going to be the same, which if I were to apply the categorical imperative rationally would mean I would want a system of law that isn't universal so that no one has another's version if good imposed over and against their own if it isn't strictly necessary.
there ought to be only one version of law because there is only one version of rightness. That is rigid.
It isn't. Rightness changes with the society it is applied to. That depends primarily on the complexity of civilisation and its needs.
For any given values, there is only one version of rightness.
Even if those people were inexplicable exceptions to the history of tyrannical rulers,
Sadly, that isn't possible for indefinite durations. And the system would devolve due to that.
if they instituted a single form of law over all persons without respect for complex geopolitics the system would devolve.
You probably don't understand what I mean by exception. There would be congruent moral and legal standards and the exact geopolitics would be a variable.
Not so much an absolute universal rigid system.
it constrains the influence the people have over their own government by consolidating power into fewer hands at the top of government.
Yes, and that those rulers should be rational. I don't support tyrannical idiots, due to which I'm also a minarchist (which, also, about a global government.)
Why would we assume that our actions would become a universal rule even when we know for a fact that they won't?
Because, well, we need to assume it to consider it. Assuming it is no important thing by itself for the purpose.
no one has another's version if good imposed over and against their own
It isn't. Rightness changes with the society it is applied to. That depends primarily on the complexity of civilisation and its needs. For any given values, there is only one version of rightness.
You are contradicting yourself. Either there is one set of values that does not vary from state to state and nation to nation, or there isn't. You don't get it both ways. If there is variability and you accept that, as this comment suggests, then you have no grounds to oppose states having their own laws if they also have their own values (which is really the only reason they would have different laws in the first place).
Sadly, that isn't possible for indefinite durations. And the system would devolve due to that.
That was rather my point; glad you agree?
You probably don't understand what I mean by exception. There would be congruent moral and legal standards and the exact geopolitics would be a variable. Not so much an absolute universal rigid system.
If you are introducing variability between nations on this basis then there is no reason it would be precluded from states which obviously have their own geopolitics as well. Again, you can't really have it both ways if you mean to have a coherent position.
Yes, and that those rulers should be rational. I don't support tyrannical idiots, due to which I'm also a minarchist (which, also, about a global government.)
But you've already conceded that the rulers would be tyrannical, so what they should be is irrelevant. They'll be tyrannical by virtue of the system you are endorsing, so to continue to support that system is to support tyrannical rulers.
Because, well, we need to assume it to consider it. Assuming it is no important thing by itself for the purpose.
You've removed the question by another degree from the categorical imperative without actually answering the question. Why do we need to consider what we know for a fact isn't the case?
An extreme moral relativist? Because, then, no system would be optimal.
You've removed my statement from its context, and attacked a strawman instead of my point.
The full sentence was: "What I think I'd want people to act like and what someone else thinks aren't going to be the same, which if I were to apply the categorical imperative rationally would mean I would want a system of law that isn't universal so that no one has another's version if good imposed over and against their own if it isn't strictly necessary."
Necessity is introduced here as a condition of imposition, and I have already explained to you how this fits in with my idea of what is optimal. The statement was also made entertaining the categorical imperative, which isn't even a part of my own argument; I was demonstrating that your conclusion doesn't follow even if we assume your premise.
We do have a lot of values, I guess. It seems here that you're referring to cultural values. While mine was about the variables of conditions.
That was rather my point; glad you agree?
I did say that I don't unconditionally support it.
you can't really have it both ways if you mean to have a coherent position.
I can. You underestimate me.
I did even see it coming, but for some reason didn't find it appropriate to address it right then.
The general law (or, equations, for an analogy) would remain the same throughout, while the exact conditions (variables) can vary.
But you've already conceded that the rulers would be tyrannical, so what they should be is irrelevant. They'll be tyrannical by virtue of the system you are endorsing, so to continue to support that system is to support tyrannical rulers.
For that, we'll need a process that does not yield tyrannical rulers in the system.
If there is no certainty over who will rule, like in democracy, that significantly lowers the chances of tyranny. On the other hand, it is high under a hereditary monarchy. And it is also lowered a lot in a minarchy.
Why do we need to consider what we know for a fact isn't the case?
To understand its implications and decide on whether it 'should' be done or not.
Necessity is introduced here as a condition of imposition,
So, a moral relativist that has separate motivations to derive necessity?
You must agree that the moral standards are uniform for a specific level of civilisation.
The general law (or, equations, for an analogy) would remain the same throughout, while the exact conditions (variables) can vary.
Ah, but now you've shifted your grounds. This isn't your original argument. You previously wrote: "Law is created based on what is right, something that doesn't change with states." & "[...] it won't have geographical exceptions." & "Law is created based on what is right, something that doesn't change with states." & "It's better for the law to be uniform throughout, because what is right does not change with states." & etc.
This new statement of yours concedes allowances that your earlier stance did not, and in so doing it undercuts your original argument. If exact conditions (variables) can vary, as you now claim, then there is no evident reason why states cannot have their own laws on some things. That was my original position, and there's no point in continuing really if this is now your position as well.
I've neglected to respond directly on most of the other matters because I think this makes our disagreements there moot. Although I do want to acknowledge your support was conditional where you noted, and I misread it initially.
To understand its implications and decide on whether it 'should' be done or not.
That's a bit specious, isn't it? You're defining the merit of a thing by presuming it can yield the very ends under question. You've effectively said the categorical imperative is useful in telling us what should be done because it tells us what should be done.
Moreover, we reasonably know that not everyone is going to act as we might act. So speculating at the implications were they to do so is an entirely hypothetical exercise with no grounded consequences at all. What bearing could a purely hypothetical consideration possibly have upon our material existence? It's detachment from reality not only disconnects it from material consequence, but that detachment has actual ramifications because we start responding to ideas about how things are or will be rather than their actual ontology.
So, a moral relativist that has separate motivations to derive necessity?
The statements you're referring to aren't presenting a position outside of the context of the categorical imperative. It's an argument against the universalizing force of the categorical imperative through its own application. Once one acknowledges that there is even some variability in morality (which you have) and that one would not want to be forced to follow a morality they believe to be wrong, then that should extend to everyone through the categorical imperative.
You must agree that the moral standards are uniform for a specific level of civilisation.
This new statement of yours concedes allowances that your earlier stance did not, and in so doing it undercuts your original argument.
It doesn't undercut my original arguments.
I'm just saying that rightness isn't the strange universally rigid thing that you think it to be (and, thus, seem to dislike rightness.)
So speculating at the implications were they to do so is an entirely hypothetical exercise with no grounded consequences at all. What bearing could a purely hypothetical consideration possibly have upon our material existence?
Yes, it isn't a completely valid thing, but good enough to begin with.
It's about considering whether your actions are for the greater good or harm. That's just a method to reach the conclusion. If it is harmful, then it 'should not' be done.
You can, of course, say that whatever you do matters very little, so you can reasonably deny considering it more widely, which is what you seem to say.
Once one acknowledges that there is even some variability in morality (which you have) and that one would not want to be forced to follow a morality they believe to be wrong, then that should extend to everyone through the categorical imperative.
I don't think I'd have said that morality is variable for a civilisation, and the world is civilised and connected enough that there not be much variables in that. Though morality was different before civilisation, and around similar important changes.
What would depend on the exact conditions are the specific rules, because the same things might not be applicable to all conditions. Due to the geographical and other conditional necessities that they might clash with.
It doesn't undercut my original arguments. I'm just saying that rightness isn't the strange universally rigid thing that you think it to be (and, thus, seem to dislike rightness.)
Your original remarks were universalizing remarks, explicitly. That you now say that rightness isn't a universally rigid thing necessarily contradicts those remarks. I never said morality was universal, I don't think it is, and its ontology is entirely immaterial to my dislike of it.
Yes, it isn't a completely valid thing, but good enough to begin with.
It's a completely invalid thing, actually. And it's hard to see what could possibly be sufficient from there, at least from a logical perspective.
It's about considering whether your actions are for the greater good or harm. That's just a method to reach the conclusion. If it is harmful, then it 'should not' be done.
The problem with that rationale is that you are presuming an a priori moral standard into what is supposed to tell us what morality is. It is not given that one must consider whether their actions are for the greater good or not.
You can, of course, say that whatever you do matters very little, so you can reasonably deny considering it more widely, which is what you seem to say.
I'm unclear what you mean to convey with this observation. Are you agreeing with that statement, or just attempting (and failing) to restate my own argument back at me? It's nothing to do with anything I've said, at any rate.
I don't think I'd have said that morality is variable for a civilisation [...]
I never claimed that you did. I said you acknowledged that there is some variability in morality, which you have done repeatedly now.
and the world is civilised and connected enough that there not be much variables in that. Though morality was different before civilisation, and around similar important changes.
What is "before civilisation"? For that matter, what is "civilisation"? At any rate, morality obviously does vary; we're still fighting international wars over it (or at least in its name).
What would depend on the exact conditions are the specific rules, because the same things might not be applicable to all conditions. Due to the geographical and other conditional necessities that they might clash with.
What does any of that actually mean? You're being very confusing because you keep contradicting yourself. Earlier you said geography wasn't relevant, and now you are saying it might. I'm honestly this close to quitting because you keep changing your mind about what your position is.
It doesn't undercut my original arguments. I'm just saying that rightness isn't the strange universally rigid thing that you think it to be (and, thus, seem to dislike rightness.)
Your original remarks were universalizing remarks, explicitly. That you now say that rightness isn't a universally rigid thing necessarily contradicts those remarks. I never said morality was universal, I don't think it is, and its ontology is entirely immaterial to my dislike of it.
Yes, it isn't a completely valid thing, but good enough to begin with.
It's a completely invalid thing, actually. And it's hard to see what could possibly be sufficient from there, at least from a logical perspective.
It's about considering whether your actions are for the greater good or harm. That's just a method to reach the conclusion. If it is harmful, then it 'should not' be done.
The problem with that rationale is that you are presuming an a priori moral standard into what is supposed to tell us what morality is. It is not given that one must consider whether their actions are for the greater good or not.
You can, of course, say that whatever you do matters very little, so you can reasonably deny considering it more widely, which is what you seem to say.
I'm unclear what you mean to convey with this observation. Are you agreeing with that statement, or just attempting (and failing) to restate my own argument back at me? It's nothing to do with anything I've said, at any rate.
I don't think I'd have said that morality is variable for a civilisation [...]
I never claimed that you did. I said you acknowledged that there is some variability in morality, which you have done repeatedly now.
and the world is civilised and connected enough that there not be much variables in that. Though morality was different before civilisation, and around similar important changes.
What is "before civilisation"? For that matter, what is "civilisation"? At any rate, morality obviously does vary; we're still fighting international wars over it (or at least in its name).
What would depend on the exact conditions are the specific rules, because the same things might not be applicable to all conditions. Due to the geographical and other conditional necessities that they might clash with.
What does any of that actually mean? You're being very confusing because you keep contradicting yourself. Earlier you said geography wasn't relevant, and now you are saying it might. I'm honestly this close to quitting because you keep changing your mind about what your position is.
Your original remarks were universalizing remarks, explicitly. That you now say that rightness isn't a universally rigid thing necessarily contradicts those remarks.
It is universal. In 'universally rigid' that is an quantifier for rigid rather than an adjective.
You're being very confusing because you keep contradicting yourself. Earlier you said geography wasn't relevant, and now you are saying it might.
Morality doesn't matter with geography and other things. The exact actions might.
Because, of course, morality is not the only thing that determines action, by itself. That shouldn't be hard to understand.
It is not given that one must consider whether their actions are for the greater good or not.
In your opinion, what would morality be?
I've considered the question from an evolutionary perspective, and find the categorical imperative to be a rational result.
Are you agreeing with that statement, or just attempting (and failing) to restate my own argument back at me?
Restating, of course. Along with that it can not be denied with practical reason.
Your basis for denying it is that it won't matter as much as when everyone does it, so why we should be thinking that at all.
I never claimed that you did. I said you acknowledged that there is some variability in morality, which you have done repeatedly now.
That's been a problem. But I might as well say that it isn't variable at all, for your comparisons. Still, it isn't completely rigid, and my asserting that would lead to contradictory conclusions if you go more into it.
But still, for all your factors, it isn't variable.
What is "before civilisation"? For that matter, what is "civilisation"?
Would rough definitions suffice? They should, though.
Anyway, it was used here as the nominal form of the verb (yes, that's what it basically is, but that'd be a linguistic question to consider.)
we're still fighting international wars over it
We're fighting no international wars over or in the name of variable morality.
Alright, I seriously cannot with this anymore. I have absolutely no idea what your position is on rightness, universality, and moral variability because you keep changing it and contradicting yourself. Either you hold to your original universalizing claims in which case my objections against universal rightness stand since you haven't repudiated them, or you don't in which case you agree with me. I'm done with that part of the discussion because it can't go anywhere so long as you can't stick to a clear position.
In your opinion, what would morality be?
Morality is an expression of preferences that generally homogenizes among individuals based upon their degree of connectivity with and shared identity with one another. It mistakes our preferences about how others act in relation to us as being an observation about some positive or negative value originating from them intrinsically, and consequently permits people to feel entitled in their expectations of others' behavior and vindicated in their retribution. From this mistaken grounds, moral cognition enshrines itself as an irreproachable authority to which conformity is expected and deviation penalized. Morality has no ontology or authority beyond that which people give it through their baseless faith in it.
I have no idea how you jump from evolution to the categorical imperative, since the former operates upon material circumstances which the latter never touches upon.
Restating, of course. Your basis for denying it is that it won't matter as much as when everyone does it, so why we should be thinking that at all.
Attempting to restate it, and failing completely (again). That's not my argument at all. My point is that if everyone used the categorical imperative towards its intended ends of establishing a universal ethic, the inevitable outcome must be a preference for a non-universal ethic. That makes the categorical imperative self-defeating.
Would rough definitions suffice? They should, though.
I really couldn't say until you actually provide them. Surely you have some idea what you mean by the term "before civilization" and the word "civilization". What do they mean to you?
Many words are verbs, so saying that civilization isn't helpful (even if it were actually true, which it isn't... its an adjective, according to any dictionary at all).
We're fighting no international wars over or in the name of variable morality.
Do you seriously believe that? Are you really going to maintain that moral language is never used in any of the international wars going on right now? No one is claiming that they are right and the other side is wrong? Really.
Though it is hard to disagree with, it is also hard to accurately put here, where the number of simultaneous strings is confusing.
Especially when what I'm describing is not the natural way of thinking it. And I don't yet have any resources about it.
Many words are verbs, so saying that civilization isn't helpful (even if it were actually true, which it isn't... its an adjective, according to any dictionary at all).
That'd be a terrible dictionary. As I said, it is a noun.
So, civilisation would be when humans settled together and needed a mutually accepted code to function properly (which is the process of being civilised.)
And before it would be when they were in the wild.
Do you seriously believe that? Are you really going to maintain that moral language is never used in any of the international wars going on right now? No one is claiming that they are right and the other side is wrong? Really.
Their claiming anything does not make it variable.
If, on the other hand, you said that 'Both are right and their claims are entirely valid', then it might serve as an argument.
I have no idea how you jump from evolution to the categorical imperative, since the former operates upon material circumstances which the latter never touches upon.
Morality is about describing what should be done. From the evolutionary perspective, what should be done is what would be beneficial for the (survival of) species. (or, the greater good.)
From that, we have the categorical imperative and the variable nature of morality with difference in the nature of civilisation.
It'd require much space to be here. Though it is hard to disagree with, it is also hard to accurately put here, where the number of simultaneous strings is confusing. Especially when what I'm describing is not the natural way of thinking it. And I don't yet have any resources about it.
I really don't think space (which isn't capped here) or the number of strings (one, two at most?) is the problem. It's an exceptionally basic question: are you a moral universalist, or aren't you? If you're trying to construct a compatabilist position then the objection is equally basic (and already raised): it's tautologically precluded by the definitions of universal and exception. I'm also completely unsympathetic to using the excuse that your position is an uncommon one with limited resources, because that's me with my general philosophy as well but I can still answer your questions with a straightforward response.
That'd be a terrible dictionary. As I said, it is a noun.
Actually, you said it was a verb. I also misspoke when I said adjective, though. But we're on the same page now: it's a noun. That still tells me absolutely nothing about what it signifies to you when you use it.
So, civilisation would be when humans settled together and needed a mutually accepted code to function properly (which is the process of being civilised.) And before it would be when they were in the wild.
That makes some of your earlier comments more confusing, actually, but I think I get your general direction so let's cut to the chase: What evidence do you have that the world is actually civilized and connected enough now (as opposed to then) that there isn't any/much moral variability?
Their claiming anything does not make it variable.
Yes, it does. They are expressing contradictory moral truths that they hold to be true. That's variability.
If, on the other hand, you said that 'Both are right and their claims are entirely valid', then it might serve as an argument.
No, it wouldn't. My views about their validity are immaterial here, as are yours. Unless they themselves hold that view (which they don't) then they have variable moral beliefs.
Morality is about describing what should be done. From the evolutionary perspective, what should be done is what would be beneficial for the (survival of) species. (or, the greater good.)
Evolution is entirely indifferent to the survival of species and the greater good. That is why it regularly leads to extinction and also produces non-pack, non-herd species. Not only is evolution broadly indifferent, but where it preferences collectivism it does so only insofar as it benefits a sufficient number of individuals so that they propagate more as individuals.
Furthermore, part of the success of collectives still relies on individual well-being, and an egoist position rejects the actual merit of subsuming individuals under the abstract idea of the greater good in part for this reason. Even if the end is collective well-being, it does not necessarily follow that the best path to this is servility to a utilitarian ethic. There are deep flaws within the utilitarian ethic, not the least of which being the utter lack of even broad consensus about what properly constitutes the "greater good".
You are also committing a naturalistic fallacy by arguing that because something is it should be. That doesn't follow.
From that, we have the categorical imperative and the variable nature of morality with difference in the nature of civilisation.
Even if your premise were sound, this still doesn't follow. The categorical imperative doesn't touch anywhere on the actual good because it is purely abstract. It has no basis in reality whatsoever. I've already explained that at length, and you never really addressed that analysis
Yeah, I am. Because they don't depend on who is thinking about them, provided that the other conditions remain same.
I'm also completely unsympathetic to using the excuse that your position is an uncommon one with limited resources,
That'd be a misunderstanding. I have no idea about whether it has limited resources. I just haven't heard of any - so I have limited resources of it.
It might be that I later find a lot of things about it, or perhaps not.
So, it'd be rational for you to be unsympathetic. But I'm not using those as defences of the opinion. It just means that it is easier to describe common things than uncommon ones. Also, if it really is new, then I would be putting it forward myself. That isn't much of a problem, but my knowledge of ethics due to which I don't know whether it is, does seem to be a problem.
What evidence do you have that the world is actually civilized and connected enough now (as opposed to then) that there isn't any/much moral variability?
That's because, due to things like globalisation and internet, any advancements can be shared with the entire world. Since they aren't localised, the level of civilisation is about the same everywhere.
Actually, you said it was a verb.
I said it was a nominal form of a verb, which means a noun.
They are expressing contradictory moral truths that they hold to be true. That's variability.
Though I generally think that it is just what they show to fight about - what they say, those aren't contradictory moral truths, but contradictory opinions. There's a difference.
Evolution is entirely indifferent to the survival of species and the greater good. That is why it regularly leads to extinction and also produces non-pack, non-herd species. Not only is evolution broadly indifferent, but where it preferences collectivism it does so only insofar as it benefits a sufficient number of individuals so that they propagate more as individuals.
Is it not common to consider selection as a part of the evolutionary process?
I'd guess it should be.
You are also committing a naturalistic fallacy by arguing that because something is it should be. That doesn't follow.
I'm saying that because something is, it affects what should be.
So, because morality has evolved this way, it affects what should be done. (Also, that'd be the reason for it not being rigid, that it isn't eternally constant, as conditions change.)
Even if your premise were sound, this still doesn't follow. The categorical imperative doesn't touch anywhere on the actual good because it is purely abstract. It has no basis in reality whatsoever. I've already explained that at length, and you never really addressed that analysis
Because, the way it works is by eliminating those who are not beneficial.
Categorical imperative just serves as a magnifying glass to understand implications of actions. Those that are beneficial are favoured evolutionarily.
Quite literally, they already do have their own laws and always have. What else do you think the 50 independent state congresses do? Have you never heard of state referendums? Are you aware that your state has its own Constitution? How are you this ignorant about your own government? Seriously, read the Federal Constitution and your state's as well.
For your immediate reference, though, here's the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Given that the US Constitution is exceptionally short (8,500 words) there isn't much delegated to the US or prohibited to the states. This is why the states can have their own constitutions.
The US was founded as a federated republic, with each state operating essentially as the sovereign nations of the EU do today. Over timem power has consolidated into the federal branches, but the states still retain the basic autonomy to pass their own laws except where the Supreme Court has ruled a certain law unconstitutional (which was itself not an originally enumerated federal power).
Why should the states having their own laws be a detriment to the rule of law? And what the hell even is meant by "the rule of law"? That's so vague it's meaningless.
The current system is not working. We need change in America. If 50 states have differing laws, there will be chaos..........................................................
No response to my observations at all then. I'm hardly surprised.
The current system is not working.We need change in America. If 50 states have differing laws, there will be chaos.
For as long as the nation has existed, the states have had their own laws. That means that there have been 200+ years in which the nation could have dissolved in to chaos, but here it still is. So, no, states having their own laws does not cause chaos... as over two centuries of history demonstrates. Seriously, where are you getting this alarmist nonsense from?
The system has always only ever worked for some people, so let's not act like that's anything new. But, sure, let's say it needs to change. Why should that change mean repealing the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution? Surely there are more obvious candidates for change, such as federal campaign finance reform, dismantling the two-party system, etc. Moreover, if anything has been made abundantly clear in the past federal elections it is that federalization has left literally millions of people feeling disenfranchised by their government. So much power has gone to the federal government that losing the federal election has taken on greater significance than it was ever intended to, with the result that losing means feeling and actually having less influence over the laws which affect you directly. Current events are an argument for decentralization, not for increased federalization.
Conversation? No. A conversation requires an actual exchange. You're just running about like a broken record player that cannot read what others write. I've already answered both your objection and the question, at length.
I'm an American. We have a Constitution, therefore I HAVE to support it. (I would anyway).
I support love over hate in ALL cases. I used to vote Republican sometimes but I found myself allergic to nuts. Couple that with all the hate and you end up a loving liberal ;<)
If the Constitution told you to discriminate would you still support it? Just because you're an American and there's a Constitution? That seems shaky, at best.
You fall in love with who you fall in love with, their genitals shouldn't effect whether you are allowed to get married to them or not. In my eyes , a gay couple has the same rights as a straight couple do. Like it or hate it, this is 2016 , we don't do discrimination anymore. I am going to bring my kids up seeing everyone as EQUAL no matter who they love, say no more.
You fall in love with who you fall in love with, their genitals shouldn't effect whether you are allowed to get married to them or not. In my eyes , a gay couple has the same rights as a straight couple do. Like it or hate it, this is 2016 , we don't do discrimination anymore. I am going to bring my kids up seeing everyone as EQUAL no matter who they love, say no more.
Nowadays it is possible for homosexuals to have and raise children. In many mammals, including humans, homosexual couples raise children superior to the children raised by heterosexual couples. These two points in consideration, one should also remember that if it doesn't violate someones freedoms and you ban it, then you are just violating that persons freedoms.
