tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27989891.post7691568727251696149..comments2023-06-10T06:31:14.117-07:00Comments on viva Vox Dei: The Homosexuality Debate, Majoritarianism, and the Moral Argumentvincit omnia veritashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07129530005436270157noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27989891.post-80205736511497655852007-10-15T10:59:00.000-07:002007-10-15T10:59:00.000-07:00Vincent is missing a crucial point. Whether you be...Vincent is missing a crucial point. Whether you believe morality is absolute or relative, there is certainly a plurality of moral opinions, and you have to ask on what basis the state can choose between them. On matters of public morality, such as theft, criminal damage, violent crime, clearly a central authority is necessary. But on what basis is the state entitled or even qualified to be a moral arbiter on matters of private morality? And if it is, whose sets of morals must it adopt? Must it always take the majority view? And how does it determine that? What if that results in the effective persecution of a minority culture or religion? If the majority supports a party that aims to exterminate 6 million Jews for the private matter of their faith, must we accept that as a legitimate expression of popular morality? Clearly not. The only way to ensure against such abhorrent outcomes is for the state to remain neutral between the private morality of its citizens. That way Vincent can keep the articles of his faith and refrain from homosexuality, while I can be true to my beliefs that gay sex is a simple physical act that is a natural joyous expression of my affection for my partner. Incidentally, I happen to believe that the Abrahamic religions are morally pernicious, (as well as utter nonsense), but I would not expect nor want the state to interfere in your right to believe them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27989891.post-29759261414756551622007-08-21T08:33:00.000-07:002007-08-21T08:33:00.000-07:00:) well, christianity contains a consistent philos...:) well, christianity contains a consistent philosophical view of life and the world, and its system of thought too hehe...<BR/><BR/>ok not the 'heaven is so real' variety but the christianity as exemplified in Kuyper's Stone Lectures.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27989891.post-38240691440960171612007-08-08T20:08:00.000-07:002007-08-08T20:08:00.000-07:00Vincent, Sharing this thought of inconsistency w...Vincent, <BR/> <BR/>Sharing this thought of inconsistency within secular world. (of liberal influence)<BR/><BR/>Like in USA, the homosexual orientation are consider 'wired' from birth. Nothing could change it. If that is really so, it means the sexual predator, paedophile, were also wired from birth. <BR/><BR/>Thus consequently, in order to protect the society, the crime of paedophile, and sexual predators should be punishable by either death penalty or life time sentence. <BR/>But that's not the case, most of the time they were consider 'sick psychologically' and thus instead of long jail time, they were send to psychiatric for treatment. <BR/>In relatively short time they were released and commited the same crime again and again. (some treatment again and again)<BR/><BR/>What to make out of those cases ? Everything are about interest/lobby/money talk. <BR/>There were many industries depending on brokenness of society. Psychiatrics, lawyers, doctors, etc. <BR/><BR/>In case of Singapore, I believed there must be 'interest' involved too. <BR/><BR/>~AbelUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14087663619803584088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27989891.post-90580213944730572632007-08-03T07:34:00.000-07:002007-08-03T07:34:00.000-07:00Dear Dominic,In my haste, I have forgotten to clar...Dear Dominic,<BR/><BR/>In my haste, I have forgotten to clarify this allegation of yours. My post says “secular humanism,” not humanism. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism<BR/><BR/>You may read its dogmas in the updated Humanist Manifesto III at:<BR/> <BR/>http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm<BR/><BR/>Sure sounds dogmatic to me. My claims will not be “dubious” if you have read my post carefully.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/>Vincentvincit omnia veritashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07129530005436270157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27989891.post-79989073728576395342007-08-03T03:22:00.000-07:002007-08-03T03:22:00.000-07:00Dear Mr Dominic Chua,Gay activists like to call ot...Dear Mr Dominic Chua,<BR/><BR/>Gay activists like to call others names, isn’t it (i.e. prejudiced)?<BR/><BR/>As a teacher, I would give you the credit that you have a good logical mind. The statements in your post, however, astound me.<BR/><BR/>Here are just a few points for you to take home:<BR/><BR/>1) Morality concerns what is right, and what is wrong.<BR/><BR/>The term “moral pluralism” is by itself an oxymoron. Can two sets of moral standards be both right? Yes or no?<BR/><BR/>You quoted, “[Morality is] the code of conduct accepted by the members of a society because in many large societies, not all members of the society accept the same code of conduct.”<BR/><BR/>The quote you used is basically advocating the “morals are mores” argument. That is, moral commands are considered community demands. This implies a cultural relativity of morality. A good exposition of the various philosophical loopholes in such a moral view is given in any reasonable philosophy of religion text.<BR/><BR/>As a primer, your view commits the “is-ought” fallacy (Hume). Just because something is the practice does not mean it ought to be. It is the case that people are cruel at times; they hate and kill. This in no way means that ought to be the case. Likewise, even if the entire community in a certain village has a preference for same-sex rectal intercourse, this does not mean that ought to be the case.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, if each community is right, then there is no way to solve conflicts between communities and nations. Whatever each one believes is right – even if it means the annihilation of each other – is right.<BR/><BR/>Thirdly, we must ultimately seek that which is right (i.e. the truth, or the universal moral law, or the natural law, or that which is right in itself). Murder cannot be both right and wrong. A tribe might consider the hunting of humans as fun, and the right thing to do. That is the moral “right” in that tribe. Singapore thinks that hunting humans for their heads is murder, which is wrong. If you claim that one group’s moral stand is right, and the other wrong, what moral standards are you subjecting yourself to?<BR/><BR/>But you have just shot yourself in both feet by saying that, “[Morality is] the code of conduct accepted by the members of a society because in many large societies, not all members of the society accept the same code of conduct.” So do we say that both are right? Do we accept all moral codes and rules as being viable, even if they contradict each other? Do you think that this is coherent and logical?<BR/><BR/>2) You said, “… yet there is no purely rational measure of which is preferable.” That is my point. This is irrational. You know it, but you want to push the same arguments down our throats.<BR/><BR/>“No purely rational measure” = “no universal moral law.”<BR/><BR/>When you claim that S377a is unfair, by what moral rules are you making that statement? Why is it unfair? As you have claimed, “There are other points along what is arguably a cline or continuum, rather than two poles.” Following your logic - “[there is] no purely rational measure [of right and wrong]” - there is really nothing essentially unfair. It is a continuum within a range of moral “preferences.”<BR/><BR/>So why do you gay activists continue to allege that the Ministry of Home Affairs is being unfair in retaining S377a? There is nothing really unfair about it. It is unfair for you, but fair for the rest of us! This is called – moral “pluralism.” And don’t impose your moral sense of unfairness upon our sense of unfairness.<BR/><BR/>There is no point deconstructing sentences into individual words or terms, and trying to redefine them to mean what you want them to mean. You have not even attempted to answer any of the arguments put forth in the post.<BR/><BR/>Very unconvincing.<BR/><BR/>3) Finally:<BR/><BR/>You wrote, “Just because I believe that in the concepts of right and wrong doesn't mean that I necessarily believe in the existence of a creator deity.”<BR/><BR/>But you have just made the argument that there is really no right or wrong. What is right for you may not be right for me (i.e. moral pluralism; “no purely rational measure” of right and wrong). You see, right is no longer right; it is meaningless to assign the word “right” to any set of concepts or notions.<BR/><BR/>Tell me, since there are no absolute “rights” and “wrongs,” what do you mean by “I believe … in the concepts of right and wrong?” Can you define “right?”<BR/><BR/>Concerning “right,” Merriam Webster says:<BR/><BR/>1 : RIGHTEOUS, UPRIGHT<BR/>2 : being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper *right conduct*<BR/>3 a : agreeable to a standard b : conforming to facts or truth : CORRECT<BR/><BR/>By incorporating your logic, allow me to add this: righteous, upright, just, good and proper are all meaningless words that do not reflect any form of conduct. What is righteous, upright, just, good and proper for one community can mean the exact opposite for another. That, Mr Chua, is your sense of right and wrong. This is called moral pluralism.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/>Vincentvincit omnia veritashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07129530005436270157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27989891.post-41004764530862904872007-08-03T01:31:00.000-07:002007-08-03T01:31:00.000-07:00Vincent,You make several dubious claims in your la...Vincent,<BR/><BR/>You make several dubious claims in your latest post. Please permit me to point them out. <BR/><BR/>Firstly, you play pretty fast and loose with your use of the term 'religion'. Atheism and secular humanism would be far more accurately defined as philosophical views or systems of thought, rather than 'religions'. <BR/><BR/>You also use the term 'humanism' as if it had no relation to Christianity. This is again pretty careless. Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities — particularly rationality. It is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems, and is incorporated into several religious schools of thought. Christian humanism is a well-established school of thought within Christianity - its proponents include Thomas More, Soren Kierkegaard and Blaise Pascal. So again, more conceptual clarity or precision would improve your argument. <BR/><BR/>I find it bizarre that you refer to Genesis 19:5. Gay men and lesbian women in general are not the sex-crazed maniacs that you attempt to caricature them as. I have no idea how you could possibly say that it is a "perennial chant" among gay rights activists. This statement unnecessarily diminishes your case, and suggests really, that is prejudice that is motivating your repeated posts on the issue.<BR/><BR/>You write that "Those acquainted with the philosophy of religion would realize that to concede to a moral argument, you are basically acquiescing to the ‘moral proof’ for the existence of God." I find this problematic. Morality or moral systems are essentially systems to distinguish between right and wrong behaviour. While some moral systems have a religious base, there are others which do not. Just because I believe that in the concepts of right and wrong doesn't mean that I necessarily believe in the existence of a creator deity. <BR/><BR/>The concept you employ, however, that seems to me to be in greatest need of clarification is 'morality'. You use this as if it were an unproblematic word, and as if everyone agreed with your usage of it. In what follows, I quote several paragraphs from the Stanford Online Dictionary of Philosophy which expresses the difficulty I experience in reading your blog post. This is taken from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/<BR/><BR/>"When “morality” refers to the codes of conduct of different societies, the features that are essential are that morality is a code of conduct that is put forward by a society and that it is used as a guide to behavior by the members of that society. In this descriptive sense, “morality” can refer to codes of conduct of different societies with widely differing content, and still be used unambiguously. However, there are now other descriptive senses of “morality.” In the sense most closely related to the original descriptive sense, “morality” refers to a guide to behavior put forward by some group other than a society, for example, a religious group. When the guide to conduct put forward by a religious group conflicts with the guide to conduct put forward by a society, it is not clear whether to say that there are conflicting moralities, or that the code of the religious group conflicts with morality. People who are members of that society and also members of the religious group, might differ with regard to the guide that they accept. They are likely to regard the guide they accept as the true morality.<BR/><BR/>"In small homogeneous societies people do not belong to groups which put forward guides to behavior that conflict with the guide put forward by their society. There is only one guide to behavior that is accepted by all members of the society and that is the code of conduct that is put forward by the society. For such societies there is no ambiguity about which guide “morality” refers to. However, in those large societies where people often belong to groups that put forward guides to behavior that conflict with the guide put forward by their society, they do not always accept the guide put forward by their society. If they accept the conflicting guide of some other group to which they belong, often a religious group, rather than the guide put forward by their society, they will not regard the guide put forward by their society as a true or genuine morality.<BR/><BR/>"This reveals an ambiguity in the original descriptive sense of morality that has two essential features: that morality is a code of conduct that is put forward by a society and that it is used as a guide to behavior by the members of that society. This ambiguity was not recognized because of the concentration on small homogeneous societies. Does “morality” refer only to those guides to conduct put forward by a society, or does it refer to guides to conduct put forward by other groups as well? There is another related ambiguity if the “code of conduct put forward by a society” is not “used as a guide to behavior by the members of that society.” Which of these essential features is most essential? The recognition that people in a society do not always accept the code of conduct that is put forward by their society presents problems for the descriptive sense of “morality” as the code of conduct put forward by a society and which used as a guide to behavior by the members of that society.<BR/><BR/>"However, it is not useful to adopt a definition of “morality” as meaning the code of conduct accepted by the members of a society because in many large societies, not all members of the society accept the same code of conduct. Nor is it useful to adopt a somewhat more general definition of “morality” as the code of conduct accepted by the members of a group because it is not only always possible, it is often the case, that not all members of any group accept the same code. A natural outcome of these problems is to switch attention from groups to individuals. If what is important is what code of conduct people accept, and members of a group do not always accept the same code of conduct, then why be concerned with groups at all?<BR/><BR/>"This consideration leads to a new descriptive sense of “morality.” “morality” is taken to mean that guide to behavior that is regarded by an individual as overriding and that he wants to be universally adopted. [See R. M. Hare, Moral Thinking] In this sense of “morality,” it refers to a guide to behavior accepted by an individual rather than that put forward by a society or any other group. But “morality” does not refer to just any guide to behavior accepted by an individual, it is that guide to behavior that the individual adopts as his overriding guide, and wants everyone else to adopt as their overriding guide as well. This sense of “morality” is a descriptive sense, because a person can refer to an individual's morality without endorsing it. In this sense, like the original descriptive sense, morality has no limitations on content. Whatever guide to behavior an individual regards as overriding and wants to be universally adopted is that individual's morality.<BR/><BR/>"When people explicitly talk about the morality of a group other than their own or of a person other than themselves, it is usually clear that they are using “morality” in a descriptive sense. However, when a person simply claims that morality prohibits or requires a given action, then the term “morality” is genuinely ambiguous. It is not clear whether it refers to (1) a guide to behavior that is put forward by a society, either his own or some other society; (1a) a guide that is put forward by a group, either one to which he belongs or another; or (1b) a guide that a person, perhaps himself, regards as overriding and wants adopted by everyone else, or (2) is a universal guide that all rational persons would put forward for governing the behavior of all moral agents. When a person uses “morality” to refer to a guide to conduct put forward by a group, unless it is his own group, it is usually only being used in its descriptive sense. No one referring to morality in that sense of “morality” need be endorsing it. When “morality” refers to a guide to conduct accepted by an individual, unless that individual is himself, it is usually being used in its descriptive sense. However, if the individual is referring to his own morality, he is endorsing it. Only (2) is always the normative sense of “morality,” but a person might hold that the morality referred to in (1), (1a), or (1b) is also the morality referred to in (2)."<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry to have subjected you to all that, but I hope it helps you to see why the term 'morality' needs to be defined and used more carefully than you're doing, at present. <BR/><BR/>Lastly, it seems to me that you construct a false dichotomy between moral absolutism and moral relativism. There are other points along what is arguably a cline or continuum, rather than two poles. Personally, I believe that moral pluralism represents a better way forward for society. An example of moral pluralism is the idea that the moral life of a nun is incompatible with that of a mother, yet there is no purely rational measure of which is preferable. <BR/><BR/>sincerely,<BR/>DominicDomchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02912453295935653541noreply@blogger.com