Effects on society of secularization and moral relativism?

[Totenkopf]

The problem, ultimately, with moral objectivism is that it all comes down to your set of first principles. You can have an absolute set of objective morals, but so can the next guy. It all depends upon what foundation you build those morals. Logic merely flows from the principles in question, it doesn't create them.

[Achilles]

^^ Godwin's Law aside,

This Godwin's Law?

 

but its an unfortunate truth, since Truth seems to be non-objective and is little more than "what the majority (of the discussed area) thinks its right".

Sorry, since you used "truth" both objectively and subjectively there, I'm not able to follow your argument. Perhaps we'd be better off using "moral" and "immoral"?

 

The world(however you define it) is constantly changing, so did our views on things around us, and our view of what is good/acceptable and otherwise.

Zeitgeist is one thing, but morality is another. Just because an act or thought or whatever was acceptable in a specific context at one point in time does not mean that it was moral.

 

So yes there is no "Objective Truth",

How do you objectively defend that? If you can't, then it must be a subjective argument, which in turn would suggest that objective morality is possible. This line of reasoning is why moral relativism isn't supportable.

 

but various versions of "Truth of The Day" succeeded one upon another. Its a matter of popularity contest between ideas, moral fashion trend.

Again, I suspect that we're taking liberties with "acceptable" vs. "moral".

 

Really, I thought that the Hitler argument would drive this point home and I'm genuinely shocked and amazed (and a little frightened) that it did not.

 

And yes, like "Soup of The Day" that we all know and love, "Truth of The Day" seems to rotate around from time to time, cause people seems to get tired of an idea after a while.

Hmmm...well how do you feel about Web Rider's argument regarding murder (the part where he argued that it was objectively wrong, not the part where he argued that it was subjectively ok...or actually, which ever part you desire to comment on, now that I think about it).

[SilentScope001]

How do you objectively defend that? If you can't, then it must be a subjective argument, which in turn would suggest that objective morality is possible. This line of reasoning is why moral relativism isn't supportable.

 

An objective truth must stand on its own merits. In other words, it cannot be questioned and must be universally accepted as true. That's why it is called "objective". As soon as someone is able to question that truth, then it is no longer objective.

 

So, if you make a statement, and if I question that statement, and if many other people question that statement, then that statement cannot be objective, because if it was objective, then why do people question it?

 

It is things like this that make ethical relativism defendable.

 

Really, I thought that the Hitler argument would drive this point home and I'm genuinely shocked and amazed (and a little frightened) that it did not.

 

Because if the Nazis won, then we as human beings would be horrified if someone claimed that the Jews were actually good, or that Communism is the right way to go.

 

Be glad that the National Socialists lost, but if the National Socialists won, truth as we know it will change and what would once appear as morally wrong would be seen as morally right and vice versa. That would be because the majority would be under the sway of Nazism, and not under the sway of Liberal Democracy. (As Poiuy said, Godwin's law aside, it's an unfortunate truth.)

[Dagobahn Eagle]

We aren't alledging atheism of supporting moral relativism. In fact, only one person is defending moral relativism (me). Everyone else is condemning it in the most stringent of terms.

The essay was in response to Jae's thread title and her satirical poem or song or whatever it was. She made it quite clear secularization was part of the subject.

 

Your essay has made me quite upset at atheism, since in the end, nothing really matters, nothing is really at stake.

How on Earth did you manage to read such a statement out of my essay?

 

When in the end, it's just a battle between two groups wanting to dominate the human race, telling them "My way is right, your way is wrong", and nobody really campaging for freedom of thought...I despair.

And this is supposed to be the reality of atheistic nations? Didn't I make it clear in the essay that secular nations like Finland and Norway top the Global Press Freedom Index?

 

First we have an idea.

Idea spreads.

Majority likes idea.-idea is popular

idea spreads more-more people like it

because so many people like it, it is thought of as correct.

Ideas spread if they're good, and they are popular for a reason. You make it sound like new ideas are accepted just for the Heck of it.

 

Why do most people still think Al-Q'aida, and not Bush, was behind 9/11? Because the 'truth' movement has not been able to prove otherwise. Why do Christians no longer burn witches? Because they figured out it was a bad idea.

 

So yes there is no "Objective Truth"

Yes, there is. Either something is true or it's not. 2+2=4. This is objective, demonstratable truth, regardless of how many people on Earth should choose to delude themselves that it's 5 or 2 or 11 or 89.

[Web Rider]

Why do most people still think Al-Q'aida, and not Bush, was behind 9/11? Because the 'truth' movement has not been able to prove otherwise. Why do Christians no longer burn witches? Because they figured out it was a bad idea.

 

good and bad are relative. Slavery was popular and accepted for a long time, it was a "good" idea. And therefore spread because it was popular. Since Goodwin's already been invoked, lets continue with Hitler. Hitlers ideas spread because they were popular(and he subjugated enough people to warp the majority).

 

Witch burning was a bad idea from the start, however, Christians held power, so they said it was a good idea, and it was. They may have known it was a bad idea and the idea simply became popular.

 

If being a skinny slutty *female dog* a good idea for young girls? No, but that none-the-less prevents it from being a popular and wide-spread idea. So much so that society thinks it's a good idea.

 

see, ideas only need to be popular, not good ones. The Iraq war was "popular" among people who were decision makers. Was it a good idea? well, that depends on what result we get, so far, doesn't look like it.

[SilentScope001]

The essay was in response to Jae's thread title and her satirical poem or song or whatever it was. She made it quite clear secularization was part of the subject.

 

Okay.

 

How on Earth did you manage to read such a statement out of my essay?

 

Because you state outright that secular nations are great and, after reading your article, realize that secular nations aren't that great. They seem boring.

 

And this is supposed to be the reality of atheistic nations? Didn't I make it clear in the essay that secular nations like Finland and Norway top the Global Press Freedom Index?

 

I am pointing to general trends here, as well as your attidue. Look here, freedom of speech means nothing unless you are able to articulate stuff and not get screamed down that you are wrong. We don't really have much freedom anywhere, to be perfectly honest. It's not about press freedom, it's about freedom to speech, to freely think, to freely criticize.

 

I'm sure people really are able to debate freely amongst themselves, but there are some things that cannot be discussed openly or be contradicited, like in this society. In other words, secular society is the same as any other society, which is why I despair. And both Finland and Norway do fund newspapers publically...so it does lead to questions of how indepedent they are...

[Jae Onasi]

Now it sounds like we're mixing objective morality and subjective morality. That can't be good!

welcome to real life.

You either have objective morality or subjective morality. You can't have both, they're mutually exclusive. If you say subjective morality is right, then you're applying an absolute to that, and it's no longer relative.

 

So Hitler's actions were morally justified while he held the majority influence. Gotcha.

yes, they were.

So if I chop a baby up in front of you and say that's OK because it's allowed in my culture, you'll say that it's OK to kill that baby? In some cultures, they say 'love your neighbor.' In some cultures, they eat them. Which do you prefer?

 

And this is supposed to be the reality of atheistic nations? Didn't I make it clear in the essay that secular nations like Finland and Norway top the Global Press Freedom Index?

And the GPFI, which ranks how freely the press supposedly can get a story, as determined by journalists who are notoriously liberal, is a. unbiased and b. relevant to overall freedom?

[Web Rider]

You either have objective morality or subjective morality. You can't have both, they're mutually exclusive. If you say subjective morality is right, then you're applying an absolute to that, and it's no longer relative.

why? I may have majority morality, but the world is not me and I'm not able to enforce my morality on the world, therefore it is accurate to say that real life represents a mix of objective, subjective, and every other kind of morality conceivable.

 

So if I chop a baby up in front of you and say that's OK because it's allowed in my culture, you'll say that it's OK to kill that baby? In some cultures, they say 'love your neighbor.' In some cultures, they eat them. Which do you prefer?

why must I choose? Since when has the world been my way or your way. According to everything I've professed, it depends on who you're surrounded by. If you're in my country following the majority-made rules, then no. If you're in any country where the rules say you cant, then it's wrong. if you're in a country that says you can, you can. If the world majority says you can't, then it's wrong.

 

I refuse to be drawn into these black and white questions you keep posing. I will not play "either or" or "yes" and "no".

[Samuel Dravis]

APATHY IS DEATH!

 

why? I may have majority morality, but the world is not me and I'm not able to enforce my morality on the world, therefore it is accurate to say that real life represents a mix of objective, subjective, and every other kind of morality conceivable.

Not really. Objective means unchanging. There's nothing you've said that could possibly be an objective moral standard. If you consider the 'moral majority' to be an objective standard-- well, it's not, as the others have already demonstrated. Simply being incapable of enforcing your particular view of the world doesn't mean that you or anyone else is following an objective morality. It just means someone has a bigger stick than you and you'd rather keep on their good side.

 

why must I choose? Since when has the world been my way or your way. According to everything I've professed, it depends on who you're surrounded by. If you're in my country following the majority-made rules, then no. If you're in any country where the rules say you cant, then it's wrong. if you're in a country that says you can, you can. If the world majority says you can't, then it's wrong.

Consider this idea, then: overall, the world treats women as a lower caste than men. Christianity is paternalistic, and that's 1/3 of the world population right there. At least another 1/5 is Muslim, etc. In fact, nearly ALL societies are paternalistic to some extent. Lip service to equality doesn't count; only actions are, or can be, moral. You can see where I'm going with this, can't you?

 

Now-- I want your answer to this. Do you consider treating women as a lower caste perfectly acceptable? Do you, indeed, follow the apparent world opinion on this subject, as you must? Note that I am not asking you to choose; you have already done that. I simply am interested in knowing what you've chosen.

 

 

 

You might say, "I live in the United States, we are above that kind of thing. The world's rules don't apply to my actions because the society I am in endorses them." If you do feel like saying that, please don't bother, because I will both call you on it and will explain in very simple terms why you are mistaken. Then, I will also ask you why, exactly, you consider your country as a collective above the rule of moral law - the totality of human conviction. After all, a country is only a free association of individuals, not a moral entity in its own right. The same goes for the society you live in; be careful not to anthropomorphize such entities. Only people have the capacity for moral action. Since this is so, people must judge their actions by the majority of all humans, not the local majority - otherwise, they'd be in danger of committing immoral acts.

 

Of course, all of this second part is completely hypothetical, because you will say that you treat women exactly as they should be treated.

[Jae Onasi]

I will not play "either or" or "yes" and "no"

So it's either my way or your way? It's either yes/no or 'both'?

 

Relative/subjective morality is logically indefensible. You cannot be right and wrong at the same time.

[Web Rider]

Now-- I want your answer to this. Do you consider treating women as a lower caste perfectly acceptable? Do you, indeed, follow the apparent world opinion on this subject, as you must? Note that I am not asking you to choose; you have already done that. I simply am interested in knowing what you've chosen.

 

Thinking and believing something is irrelevant. Professing it is all that matters. And the majority of people who stand up and profess things, they profess equality. Regardless of what their beliefs tell them to profess or what the religion of their choice professes.

 

Does the majority of people who get up on the world stage and say things say women should be second class citizens, regardless of their actions at home? Not to mention that simply painting every christian as a woman-oppressing man is stupid for a: about 50% of all christians ARE women, and many christian men treat women as equals.

 

Furhtermore I stated earlier, in relation to you're US example, that the world has set forth the precedent of opinion that unless a soverign nation is explicitly doing something that is adversly affecting another soverign nation or the world, then what it's doing is generally OK.

 

Thus I CAN claim that in the US we do things differently, or at least we claim to do so. Because the world majority, which outranks any other majority, has said it's okay for us to do that within our borders. ie: to form smaller majorities on subjects and make our own decisions.

 

Initially I think you're idea is flawed because ALL christians don't treat women like second-class citizens, and ALL muslims, while usually subscribing to the idea that women are to be subservient to men, do not all unanimously agree to that. Furthermore, there are still atheists to be considered, Buddhists, non-denominational spiritualists, wiccans, and so on on the subject.

 

The world, yes, finds it OK when women are treated as subservient as long as they are treated well when doing so. To that much I agree is acceptable. However the world also says that IF you want to treat women as equals or betters, then you are welcome to do that as well, hence my ability to claim that so long as I reside in the US, it is not OK for me to treat women as subservient, even if the world says it's OK to do so, because the world has also given my country the ability to choose to be different.

[Samuel Dravis]

Thinking and believing something is irrelevant. Professing it is all that matters. And the majority of people who stand up and profess things, they profess equality. Regardless of what their beliefs tell them to profess or what the religion of their choice professes.

Quite. And I am saying that the majority acts in a way that is paternalistic towards women, and some core beliefs reinforce that. What people say they do is really quite irrelevant.

 

Does the majority of people who get up on the world stage and say things say women should be second class citizens, regardless of their actions at home?

 

Not to mention that simply painting every christian as a woman-oppressing man is stupid for a: about 50% of all christians ARE women, and many christian men treat women as equals.

No, I didn't say they were necessarily as strong as oppressive. I meant their actions betray an opinion that men know better, or should have more power than women.

 

Furhtermore I stated earlier, in relation to you're US example, that the world has set forth the precedent of opinion that unless a soverign nation is explicitly doing something that is adversly affecting another soverign nation or the world, then what it's doing is generally OK.

 

Thus I CAN claim that in the US we do things differently, or at least we claim to do so. Because the world majority, which outranks any other majority, has said it's okay for us to do that within our borders. ie: to form smaller majorities on subjects and make our own decisions.

Not making a decision on or not being able to enforce said decision on an action does not constitute saying "ok" to it. Countries have armies specifically to stop others imposing their moral values - even if that idea happens to be in the majority. The Cold War was all about that.

 

I myself do not find it acceptable for other countries to allow human trafficking, but I can't do (much) about it since I lack the power. If you looked at all the people in the United States to see if they condoned it, I venture they wouldn't. The same with the world population - I'm fairly sure they do not like it either. However, sovereignty prevents them from acting on that conviction because we're afraid of the stick. So, I say that not being willing to go to war over an issue hardly equates to "hey do your thing man, more power to you!"

 

Initially I think you're idea is flawed because ALL christians don't treat women like second-class citizens, and ALL muslims, while usually subscribing to the idea that women are to be subservient to men, do not all unanimously agree to that. Furthermore, there are still atheists to be considered, Buddhists, non-denominational spiritualists, wiccans, and so on on the subject.

Sure, I agree that all do not necessarily have to treat women really badly. But I think that a majority treats them differently and that that difference is not explained by physical ability.

 

The world, yes, finds it OK when women are treated as subservient as long as they are treated well when doing so. To that much I agree is acceptable. However the world also says that IF you want to treat women as equals or betters, then you are welcome to do that as well, hence my ability to claim that so long as I reside in the US, it is not OK for me to treat women as subservient, even if the world says it's OK to do so, because the world has also given my country the ability to choose to be different.

But I've told you already, local societies cannot be the measure of morality, so while your local society may think it is acceptable for you to act in this way, you are actually being immoral. If you looked at people one by one from everywhere, found what they do on the subject, and implemented it, you should be treating women like the total majority, should you not? Only in this way will you join the ranks of the righteous.

[Web Rider]

Sure, I agree that all do not necessarily have to treat women really badly. But I think that a majority treats them differently and that that difference is not explained by physical ability.

 

You said "lesser" before, now you say "differently". I DO think there are reasons that women should be treated differently, in certain contexts. And much as feminism would like you to believe that women and men are 100% the same in every way except genitals, it's not true. The way and rate at which women build muscle and store fat is different then men. If you run a man and woman through a massive workout program over a couple years, the man WILL come out with more muscle mass. In 9/10 jobs, no, I don't think that there's going to be any performance differences, but many of the jobs in the past required sheer muscle work, and women didn't perform as well in those roles, and that's when the idea was formed.

 

But I've told you already, local societies cannot be the measure of morality, so while your local society may think it is acceptable for you to act in this way, you are actually being immoral. If you looked at people one by one from everywhere, found what they do on the subject, and implemented it, you should be treating women like the total majority, should you not? Only in this way will you join the ranks of the righteous.

 

Of course, if I could get everybody's opinion on every subject I'd also be able to develop a perfect world because all opinions on all subjects would be taken into account.

 

But here we run into the Socratic infinite time for infinite possibilities.

[Samuel Dravis]

You said "lesser" before, now you say "differently". I DO think there are reasons that women should be treated differently, in certain contexts. And much as feminism would like you to believe that women and men are 100% the same in every way except genitals, it's not true. The way and rate at which women build muscle and store fat is different then men. If you run a man and woman through a massive workout program over a couple years, the man WILL come out with more muscle mass. In 9/10 jobs, no, I don't think that there's going to be any performance differences, but many of the jobs in the past required sheer muscle work, and women didn't perform as well in those roles, and that's when the idea was formed.

Right, which is exactly why I said that "this difference [in treatment] is not explained by physical abililty." So, while I do find there is differences between the genders, women are not treated the same when they can be; i.e., in fact, according to popular opinion on what is good, they are treated less well. The question is: do you treat them well or do you treat them as they should be treated?

 

Of course, if I could get everybody's opinion on every subject I'd also be able to develop a perfect world because all opinions on all subjects would be taken into account.

 

But here we run into the Socratic infinite time for infinite possibilities.

Are you saying that you will not put forth the effort to find out what the general idea is throughout the world, or that you don't care, or that it's impossible to ever find out?

 

Statistics is a very good way of determining the majority opinion without actually polling every single person. I would say it's quite possible to determine what the majority thinks about the treatment of women.

[SilentScope001]

In defense of WebRider...

 

Samuel Dravis: ...Why not ask the women? If the majority of women believe that they are being oppressed and that the males are merely paying lip service, then that would be true within that majority and if Web Rider consider himself a friend of womenkind, he must side with said truth. If the majority of women believe in the oppsoite, that they are being treated fairly or even better off than they are before, then that is true for within that subgroup...and if you still manitan that women are being oppressed even when the women do not believe that they are being oppressed, um...er...I'm going to have to discount that.

 

Lip service is basically the only real way we can determine what a person believe. It may be true that a person can be a hypocrite, but it is usually harder to evaulate if an action supports or is against something, and I am sure that the person you are accusing of being anti-Woman does not see himself as anti-Woman...so it really goes down to "Who do we trust? Samuel Dravis or That Other Guy?" What if your rhetoric is really "lip service" to womankind, what if you are just a mysgonist as that other guy and you are hiding it? Better off just to listen to Lip Service instead of trying to figure out what people 'really' believe.

 

I could claim that the Democrats really are actually pro-Bush, they just don't know they are pro-Bush but secretly, deep down, they really are, adopting many of Bush's policies and often times choosing the same stuff Bush do. They even eat the same preztels as Bush! But that'll just me laughed out of the Democrats' meeting...if not lynched.

[Web Rider]

Right, which is exactly why I said that "this difference [in treatment] is not explained by physical abililty." So, while I do find there is differences between the genders, women are not treated the same when they can be; i.e., in fact, according to popular opinion on what is good, they are treated less well. The question is: do you treat them well or do you treat them as they should be treated?

I think you missed what I said. The difference in treatment in most situations, yes, is not explained by physical ability. However, it IS explained by physical ability based on the jobs 2000 years ago. I treat women as they should be treated, as human beings.

 

Are you saying that you will not put forth the effort to find out what the general idea is throughout the world, or that you don't care, or that it's impossible to ever find out?

I said it's impossible to get every opinion, not the "general opinion", but then I'm really only finding out what the people who bother to stand up and be counted think.

 

Statistics is a very good way of determining the majority opinion without actually polling every single person. I would say it's quite possible to determine what the majority thinks about the treatment of women.

No, really they're not.

[Samuel Dravis]

I think you missed what I said. The difference in treatment in most situations, yes, is not explained by physical ability. However, it IS explained by physical ability based on the jobs 2000 years ago. I treat women as they should be treated, as human beings.

And I say that if the majority opinion says they shouldn't be treated as these "human beings," then they should not. Don't you agree?

 

I said it's impossible to get every opinion, not the "general opinion", but then I'm really only finding out what the people who bother to stand up and be counted think.

So, you don't care to find out what the majority opinion is, just whoever the most vocal subgroup is. I see.

 

No, really they're not.

In what way do you think statistics is flawed? The metadata created by statistics is a direct result of the data input. Unless you feed in bad information, I honestly can't think of a way to make statistical information false. I can see how people would believe that, given that stats is often used in a way that makes it seem to say something it does not - however, if the methodology is good, it cannot provide false information.

[Web Rider]

And I say that if the majority opinion says they shouldn't be treated as these "human beings," then they should not. Don't you agree?

yes, but it doesn't. /end

 

So, you don't care to find out what the majority opinion is, just whoever the most vocal subgroup is. I see.

Opinions only matter if people voice them. Otherwise, they're opinion will have no affect on the world, and thus, not matter. And no, I'm not looking for subgroups, only willing donors of their opinion. I ask: what's you're opinion on X? and if they choose not to tell, then their opinion does not count.

 

In what way do you think statistics is flawed? The metadata created by statistics is a direct result of the data input. Unless you feed in bad information, I honestly can't think of a way to make statistical information false. I can see how people would believe that, given that stats is often used in a way that makes it seem to say something it does not - however, if the methodology is good, it cannot provide false information.

Because generally any statistic conducuted on any subjective subject is done so by a subjective party, who either asks the "right questions" or asks only certain people.

 

If you only ask the people of San Fran if gay marriage should be legalized, it would be. Now, try asking 10% of every state for it's opinion, to get even the most VAGUE opinion of what the US thinks. Imagine extending that to the world.

 

Do you see now why I don't trust statistics? There is too much variation even in an area the size of California to be able to say that you could use a survey from X state and apply it to the country, or X country and apply it to the world.

[Samuel Dravis]

yes, but it doesn't. /end

Strange, then, that they appear to be treated less favorably than men.

 

Opinions only matter if people voice them. Otherwise, they're opinion will have no affect on the world, and thus, not matter. And no, I'm not looking for subgroups, only willing donors of their opinion. I ask: what's you're opinion on X? and if they choose not to tell, then their opinion does not count.

Do actions count as opinion? Because I would say that they are much better judges of a person's moral ideas than any pontificating. If they do count, then, people hardly would have to explicitly state their opinion in order to give it.

 

 

Because generally any statistic conducuted on any subjective subject is done so by a subjective party, who either asks the "right questions" or asks only certain people.

Which is why I explicitly stated nonbiased methodology as a requirement.

 

If you only ask the people of San Fran if gay marriage should be legalized, it would be. Now, try asking 10% of every state for it's opinion, to get even the most VAGUE opinion of what the US thinks. Imagine extending that to the world.

 

Do you see now why I don't trust statistics? There is too much variation even in an area the size of California to be able to say that you could use a survey from X state and apply it to the country, or X country and apply it to the world.

Not trusting statistics in general is quite different from not trusting a particular methodology. The first is, in my view, insane. The second is quite reasonable. I note that polls conducted to estimate the next president are quite accurate, even considering local populations, to within a few percentage points (pdf). Is there a particular reason you think that similar accuracies are not feasible with other countries?

 

 

In defense of WebRider...

 

Samuel Dravis: ...Why not ask the women? If the majority of women believe that they are being oppressed and that the males are merely paying lip service, then that would be true within that majority and if Web Rider consider himself a friend of womenkind, he must side with said truth. If the majority of women believe in the oppsoite, that they are being treated fairly or even better off than they are before, then that is true for within that subgroup...and if you still manitan that women are being oppressed even when the women do not believe that they are being oppressed, um...er...I'm going to have to discount that.

Why do you think women's opinions count more than any other moral being? The very premise of Webrider's argument is that the totality of human opinion is moral.

 

Lip service is basically the only real way we can determine what a person believe. It may be true that a person can be a hypocrite, but it is usually harder to evaulate if an action supports or is against something, and I am sure that the person you are accusing of being anti-Woman does not see himself as anti-Woman...so it really goes down to "Who do we trust? Samuel Dravis or That Other Guy?" What if your rhetoric is really "lip service" to womankind, what if you are just a mysgonist as that other guy and you are hiding it? Better off just to listen to Lip Service instead of trying to figure out what people 'really' believe.

We can evaluate actions based on what the majority thinks is good. Thus, better paying jobs are good, and less paying jobs are bad. If it's the same job, then clearly the one that pays more is better. Thus, if someone does not give the same amount to a woman who is capable of the job, then they are being descriminatory. Whether this type of discrimination is moral or not is the question that I ask Webrider to answer, with his actions.

[SilentScope001]

As per the Second database melt-down, I'm going to have to repost something I typed up...

 

Why do you think women's opinions count more than any other moral being? The very premise of Webrider's argument is that the totality of human opinion is moral.

 

Womankind composes of 50-51% of the human race. If they are totally united against mankind, then it will lead to a 50-50 division between those who think women are being oppressed (women) and those who think women are being treated fairly (men), and due to the fact that we really need a supermajority to agree on something for it to be true rather than a regural majority, the entire issue is at stake and we do not know what is morally right or not. Assuming that there will be a large splinter group of men that will go and ally with the women (and a smaller splinter group of women that will go and ally with the men), we'll push that 50-50 to say 65-25, turning the views of womenkind into absolute truth.

 

We need to take into account both the women's as well as the men's views as well in order to determine what the majority of the human race believes in.

 

We can evaluate actions based on what the majority thinks is good. Thus, better paying jobs are good, and less paying jobs are bad. If it's the same job, then clearly the one that pays more is better.

 

Not really. Higher paying jobs may come up with higher stress and more demands than a lower paying job. And how do you define "higher paying"? In monetary means, or more in beniefts as well, such as materinty leave? Women get maternity leave, men probraly don't.

 

Thus, if someone does not give the same amount to a woman who is capable of the job, then they are being descriminatory. Whether this type of discrimination is moral or not is the question that I ask Webrider to answer, with his actions.

 

Problem is that, while stats do show that women get paid 80 cents on the dollar that each man makes, well, where I work, my boss does pay equal wages. We'll probraly need some sort of research to determine how many people are actually paying lower wages, do a headcount. Since such a thing may be illegal, a person would be likely to hide his behavior very well or argue that it is mere concidence that Mr. Bob is better at his work than Ms. Smith, and so Mr. Bob gets paid more regardless of gender (and it may be true).

 

Basically, I'd like a headcount to see how many people do pay lesser wages to women and how many people do pay higher or equal wages to women. Once we can determine that, then we have to ask why. Are they doing it purely for discrimantory reasons based soley on gender...or are they doing it for purely business reasons (they want to save money)...or if the men really do concidentally outperform the women? If it turns out that the people who are paying lesser wages are in the minority, or if they are in the majority, but the reasons WHY they are doing it splinters the group into several minorites, then the Equality group can prevail as the only group that remains...at least fairly united.

 

Basically, we don't have enough stats to make a clear desicion on the issue and anything we say is nothing more than baseless speculation. (I do agree that stats are pretty accurate, but let be honest, the research project I am speculating is nigh-ho impossible to do due to its high costs.) But let assume all that is true, that there is a majority against paying equal wages and they all agree it is based on discrimnation...then should a business owner morally pay less or not?

 

Then, EVEN THEN, the businessperson may have to follow the largest majority. It is expected that businesspeople make profits and that the businesspeople also have high employee morale in order to ensure that profits be made. By having wages for women be too low or discrimantory, the women may be angry and react violently via lawsuits or just quitting the job, thereby hurting the bottom line. So even though there may be a majority in support of discrimination, there is also a bigger majority in support of keeping profits and employee morale high, and in the end, this allows the businessperson to decide what majority to support: either the majority of paying equal wages to ensure employee morale or the majority of paying unequal wages for various reasons, mostly, discrimnatory reasons. In the end, he may side with the larger majority (equal wages).

 

Good thing I usually don't have to think out these stuff on a day-to-day basis, due to my pretty simple theory.

[Totenkopf]

But I've told you already, local societies cannot be the measure of morality, so while your local society may think it is acceptable for you to act in this way, you are actually being immoral. If you looked at people one by one from everywhere, found what they do on the subject, and implemented it, you should be treating women like the total majority, should you not? Only in this way will you join the ranks of the righteous.

 

Nice soapbox, dude.

[Ray Jones]

Right and wrong don't matter, only what the largest number of people agree upon. And that makes it correct.

Does that mean that, 2000 years ago, earth was really a plate?

 

Hitler lost because more people thought he was wrong than right.

No he lost because he was stupid enough to incite conflicts on all fronts at once, which logistically and resource-wise a no-no. Hitler lost due to tactical and strategic mistakes, not because he was wrong.

 

Murder is bad because more people think it's bad than good.

No. Murder is bad because (objective) morality says so.

[SilentScope001]

No he lost because he was stupid enough to incite conflicts on all fronts at once, which logistically and resource-wise a no-no. Hitler lost due to tactical and strategic mistakes, not because he was wrong.

 

No, he lost because basically more NATIONS attacked him than he had allies. If, say, every single person on Earth believed that Nazisim was right, Germany would have no need for pulling off WWII.

 

Basically, Germany made tactical errors, but all those errors meant nothing if he had nobody fighting him. There were millions of people against them, and that is why Germany lost.

 

No. Murder is bad because (objective) morality says so.

 

Prove it. We can't accept whatever people say just because they say it.

[SilentScope001]

I have some bad feelings that all of Web Riders/Achilles' discussion and Samuel Dravis' post was deleted in the DB Terror Attack.

 

Don't worry, Samuel I read it, so no need to repost it. Altough I don't remember much of it, I do understand what you say.

 

1) I do care what people say and not what people do, only because I find it impratical to claim that certain actions can support or not support an idea. Actions, standing by itself, without any sort of justification or explaination, does not seem to mean anything. Murder is wrong, but states and nations do it anyway, but it is not moral to murder because the states and the nations provide justifications for certain types of murders and condemn other murders. If you don't listen to the justifications, then you would only see people dying, and that would showcase a moral picture that is much different than if you account for the justifications.

 

We do reach an impasse on this issue, however, and I think we probraly won't budge on it. Oh well. At least we learn about each other's values.

 

2) Assuming that you are right, then your comment that statements are actions, then it is said that it is moral to offer lip service and to claim and totally support equality. However, if you say is true that they don't do actions that support equality, then maybe they are just being hypocrites. Maybe they are not totally thinking about their actions, not knowing that they are wrong, or that that they are listening to the rhetoric. So, it may be right to pull off the higher payments of wages or treat them with other ways of equality, but people don't know it yet. Maybe all it takes is a "immoral" person, who is in fact moral but the majority doesn't know it, to go and convince the "moral" people that they are in fact not fully being moral, and then therefore cause them to evovle their morality to be more in support of equality.

 

3) Going against the majority, committing an immoral act, is immoral, but that doesn't mean you can't do it. One thing that is interesting about secular ethical theories is that you won't get punished if you commit immoral stuff. There is no Kantian lighting bolt that will strike you if you lie. In fact, without people being immoral, society won't progress at all. If people were all totally moral and good, then slavery would still exist, there would be no discussion over equality, and we'd probraly wouldn't have all those nations and schisms in the first place. In fact, I would consider that Web Rider is in fact committing an immoral act right now, by preaching moral majoritism when it is possible that a majority of people disagree with moral majoritism. In which case, I'm okay with people knowingly choosing to do an immoral action, like paying equal wages to men and women. Why they would do so may be for moral reasons though (keeping women happy, increasing profits and employee morale, sastifiying their own superego, etc.).

 

4) I'd suppose that if "good" is subjective, as in "good wages", then so would treatment of women in general, not just in terms of monetary wages. It does make it hard to prove anything, either for me or against me, since we are dealing with subjectivie values. Still, it's only a minor point.

[Jae Onasi]

In defense of WebRider...

Samuel Dravis: ...Why not ask the women?

 

Let's see--pay inequality, social inequity, occupational inequality, wife abuse being viewed as acceptable in the majority of the world, girls being treated as chattel, women in some parts of the world being burned alive for not bringing enough dowry to a marriage, inadequate maternity leave, inequitable health care in large parts of the world, rape, forced female 'circumcision', education of girls/women being a punishable offense under the Taliban.... Yup, we women believe that's acceptable. Not.