So we can qualify your position regarding gay marriage Statler, just what is your opinion regarding gays in general?

(May 26, 2011 at 7:31 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I'm intrigued though, why don't you think this step towards equality (in thinking anyway) is progress?

What I'm finding difficult to understand in this thread is how, as a moral nihilist, you are able to make claims about "progress" - that one state of affairs is better than another. As a Christian I can make sense of it with God having a particular purpose for how human society should be and our society progressing towards (or regressing away from) that standard. From your perspective, how do you make sense of the idea of "progress"?

(Please do move this question to somewhere more appropriate - philosophy perhaps - if you only want to focus on the political and historical questions in this thread.)

(May 28, 2011 at 6:10 am)Timothy Wrote:

(May 26, 2011 at 7:31 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I'm intrigued though, why don't you think this step towards equality (in thinking anyway) is progress?

What I'm finding difficult to understand in this thread is how, as a moral nihilist, you are able to make claims about "progress" - that one state of affairs is better than another. As a Christian I can make sense of it with God having a particular purpose for how human society should be and our society progressing towards (or regressing away from) that standard. From your perspective, how do you make sense of the idea of "progress"?

(Please do move this question to somewhere more appropriate - philosophy perhaps - if you only want to focus on the political and historical questions in this thread.)

I can't speak for Adrian, but quantifying progress is very easy in this case. Peaceful co-existence of the entire world - no matter your race, your sexual orientation, your nationality or anything else -- that is the goal. Anything that moves us closer to that goal is progress. Giving gays and lesbians the same civil rights that you currently enjoy is progress. The majority of people who don't see that are most always religious people.

Christianity inherently slows progress. You see, most of you people believe that "god hates fags" and because of that homosexuals don't deserve the happiness that you deserve. However, your definition of progress probably hit its peak in the Dark Ages when the hand of god kept blinders on the human race and 99% of the population were sheep. Or are you better than that?

(May 28, 2011 at 6:10 am)Timothy Wrote: What I'm finding difficult to understand in this thread is how, as a moral nihilist, you are able to make claims about "progress" - that one state of affairs is better than another. As a Christian I can make sense of it with God having a particular purpose for how human society should be and our society progressing towards (or regressing away from) that standard. From your perspective, how do you make sense of the idea of "progress"?

(Please do move this question to somewhere more appropriate - philosophy perhaps - if you only want to focus on the political and historical questions in this thread.)

You really need to go look up what a moral nihilist is.

You're finding it 'difficult to understand' because your understanding is wrong.

(May 28, 2011 at 10:31 am)Cinjin Cain Wrote: I can't speak for Adrian, but quantifying progress is very easy in this case. Peaceful co-existence of the entire world - no matter your race, your sexual orientation, your nationality or anything else -- that is the goal. Anything that moves us closer to that goal is progress.

Why is peaceful co-existence the goal rather than some other state of affairs? It just seems like an arbitrary choice. That is really what my question is about. Of course, once you've decided what the goal is, it is easy to define a measure of progress. But my question is about how we come to choose that goal rather than some other one. Is it because it is a morally good state of affairs? That isn't consistent with moral nihilism*. Is it simply because some group of people would prefer it to any other state? Well, why should we take their opinions as the standard rather than some other group's?

*Moral nihilism as I understand it is the view that nothing is moral or immoral (good or bad, right or wrong, etc.). Please do correct me if I am mistaken so I can represent your view(s) accurately.

(May 28, 2011 at 2:12 pm)Timothy Wrote:

(May 28, 2011 at 10:31 am)Cinjin Cain Wrote: I can't speak for Adrian, but quantifying progress is very easy in this case. Peaceful co-existence of the entire world - no matter your race, your sexual orientation, your nationality or anything else -- that is the goal. Anything that moves us closer to that goal is progress.

Why is peaceful co-existence the goal rather than some other state of affairs? It just seems like an arbitrary choice. That is really what my question is about. Of course, once you've decided what the goal is, it is easy to define a measure of progress. But my question is about how we come to choose that goal rather than some other one. Is it because it is a morally good state of affairs? That isn't consistent with moral nihilism*. Is it simply because some group of people would prefer it to any other state? Well, why should we take their opinions as the standard rather than some other group's?

*Moral nihilism as I understand it is the view that nothing is moral or immoral (good or bad, right or wrong, etc.). Please do correct me if I am mistaken so I can represent your view(s) accurately.

Doesn't matter if you agree with the goal or not. The goal in mind explains the progress.

And by the way - since we're asking stupid questions ... I'll go ahead and ask one. What do you think humanity's goal should be?

(If you're wondering what "stupid question" I'm referring to, this is it: "Why is peaceful co-existence the goal rather than some other state of affairs?" Right - war, poverty and bigotry has worked out SO WELL for the human race so far!)

(May 28, 2011 at 4:52 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote: Doesn't matter if you agree with the goal or not. The goal in mind explains the progress.

In whose mind?

Quote:And by the way - since we're asking stupid questions ... I'll go ahead and ask one. What do you think humanity's goal should be?

I have no time for stupid questions.

Quote:(If you're wondering what "stupid question" I'm referring to, this is it: "Why is peaceful co-existence the goal rather than some other state of affairs?" Right - war, poverty and bigotry has worked out SO WELL for the human race so far!)

So what you're saying then is that peace and its consequences for the human species (and presumably you would be willing to extend that to other creatures if you are not a speciesist) are better than the alternatives. Which is the whole point of my stupid question about the consistency of moral nihilism and "progress".

(May 28, 2011 at 5:40 pm)Timothy Wrote:

(May 28, 2011 at 4:52 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote: Doesn't matter if you agree with the goal or not. The goal in mind explains the progress.

In whose mind?

Quote:And by the way - since we're asking stupid questions ... I'll go ahead and ask one. What do you think humanity's goal should be?

I have no time for stupid questions.

Quote:(If you're wondering what "stupid question" I'm referring to, this is it: "Why is peaceful co-existence the goal rather than some other state of affairs?" Right - war, poverty and bigotry has worked out SO WELL for the human race so far!)

So what you're saying then is that peace and its consequences for the human species (and presumably you would be willing to extend that to other creatures if you are not a speciesist) are better than the alternatives. Which is the whole point of my stupid question about the consistency of moral nihilism and "progress".

If you don't have time for me than I don't have time for you pal. This whole shtick you've got going of answering a question with a question is pseudo intellectual and masturbatory in it's very nature. You manage to interject without ever making a point. It's arrogant sophistry and I'll have nothing more to do with you. I THOUGHT I'd attempt a legitimate conversation with a Christian. Obviously, you have proven to me once again that you people are utterly useless.

*IGNORING User*

Tom,
From my understanding moral nihilism is the belief that there are no inherent moral values. This does not stop people from having subjective moral values, this is where I think you are getting confused.

(May 28, 2011 at 6:18 pm)Napoleon666 Wrote: Tim,
From my understanding moral nihilism is the belief that there are no inherent moral values. This does not stop people from having subjective moral values, this is where I think you are getting confused.

Typically moral nihilism involves the denial of any truth claims with respect to moral values and obligations, be they "objective" or "subjective". In any case, my point applies to ethical subjectivism and moral relativism equally - if the notion of progress is simply dependent on personal preference, then what sense does it make to ask questions about whether, for example, progress has been made in the case of gay marriage? It can no longer be a question about which there can be substantive debate (since there is no standard by which such a debate could be measured against), but only the sharing of various personal preferences. It becomes a question akin to "What is your favourite genre of music?" or "Which is better: coffee or tea?"