A question of morality

[untermensche]

And where are you getting that? Perhaps you’ll cite to public accommodation laws but public accommodation laws aren’t the “economic system,” rather they regulate the economic system. Which is another way of saying an inherent goal of the state regulatory system is to “be free of irrational bigotry.”

It is an essential element of a free society.

I don't give a damn what corrupt lawyers say.

Is it? What are you basing that on?

A sense of morality.

You can't both have freedom and also allow bigots to deny service based on nothing more than ignorance.

That is freedom for the ignorant baker and hardship for the innocent victim.

That is not a system based on the equal right to freedom of all the innocent.

If you think our man-made system is not based on the equal right to freedom of all the innocent then you are a potential threat to many.

 

[untermensche]

And where are you getting that? Perhaps you’ll cite to public accommodation laws but public accommodation laws aren’t the “economic system,” rather they regulate the economic system. Which is another way of saying an inherent goal of the state regulatory system is to “be free of irrational bigotry.”

It is an essential element of a free society.

I don't give a damn what corrupt lawyers say.

Is it? What are you basing that on?

A sense of morality.

You can't both have freedom and also allow bigots to deny service based on nothing more than ignorance.

That is freedom for the ignorant baker and hardship for the innocent victim.

That is not a system based on the equal right to freedom of all the innocent.

If you think our man-made system is not based on the equal right to freedom of all the innocent then you are a potential threat to many.

 

[James Madison]

Is it? What are you basing that on?

A sense of morality.

You can't both have freedom and also allow bigots to deny service based on nothing more than ignorance.

That is freedom for the ignorant baker and hardship for the innocent victim.

That is not a system based on the equal right to freedom of all the innocent.

If you think our man-made system is not based on the equal right to freedom of all the innocent then you are a potential threat to many.

Yeah, whose morality? What morality? Morality isn’t generally speaking static. People do not all agree as to what is or isn’t moral and immoral.

 

[untermensche]

Is it? What are you basing that on?

A sense of morality.

You can't both have freedom and also allow bigots to deny service based on nothing more than ignorance.

That is freedom for the ignorant baker and hardship for the innocent victim.

That is not a system based on the equal right to freedom of all the innocent.

If you think our man-made system is not based on the equal right to freedom of all the innocent then you are a potential threat to many.

Yeah, whose morality? What morality? Morality isn’t generally speaking static. People do not all agree as to what is or isn’t moral and immoral.

That same crazy morality that ended legal racial segregation and legal discrimination based on race.

Something I guess they forget to mention in law school.

The only problem with not serving black people is a moral problem.

Take away morality and there is no problem.

Take away morality and we can put all the Jews in ovens and it is no big deal. We write the appropriate laws, get the appropriate decisions from the courts and do it. The Germans did it. We could too.

The problem with some ignorant bigot not serving innocent transsexuals who's lives are tough enough from widespread bigotry is a moral problem.

A moral person says: "That is not right. It should not be allowed."

The problem in the US is Christian bigotry wins out over morality in the courts too many times.

Perhaps one day law schools will teach morality.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah, whose morality? What morality? Morality isn’t generally speaking static. People do not all agree as to what is or isn’t moral and immoral.

That same crazy morality that ended legal racial segregation and legal discrimination based on race.

Something I guess they forget to mention in law school.

The only problem with not serving black people is a moral problem.

Take away morality and there is no problem.

Take away morality and we can put all the Jews in ovens and it is no big deal. We write the appropriate laws, get the appropriate decisions from the courts and do it. The Germans did it. We could too.

The problem with some ignorant bigot not serving innocent transsexuals is a moral problem.

A moral person says: "That is not right. It should not be allowed."

See, that's something I generally think of as "lawful evil", conveniently forgetting that the reason for the law is to support the equal right of freedom for all, rather than acting to the purpose of "for the furtherance of whatever it is I want".

 

[James Madison]

Yeah, whose morality? What morality? Morality isn’t generally speaking static. People do not all agree as to what is or isn’t moral and immoral.

That same crazy morality that ended legal racial segregation and legal discrimination based on race.

Something I guess they forget to mention in law school.

The only problem with not serving black people is a moral problem.

Take away morality and there is no problem.

Take away morality and we can put all the Jews in ovens and it is no big deal. We write the appropriate laws, get the appropriate decisions from the courts and do it. The Germans did it. We could too.

The problem with some ignorant bigot not serving innocent transsexuals who's lives are tough enough from widespread bigotry is a moral problem.

A moral person says: "That is not right. It should not be allowed."

The problem in the US is Christian bigotry wins out over morality in the courts too many times.

Perhaps one day law schools will teach morality.

And which morality is to be taught in law school? The morality for female genitalia mutilation as practiced in Africa, parts of the Middle East and some parts of Asia? The morality that says homosexuality, lesbianism, are wrong? The morality which allowed pedophilia in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome? The morality permitting mistreatment of not only the Jews but the infirm and sick, in Nazi Germany?

What your post ignores is that there is a morality where gays are sinners, along with transgender and lesbians.

For some morality, the moral person says “it is right.”

Your post rests on the notion of some universal, absolute moral code in which the Nazi’s and people like Phillips have transgressed. Does that exist?

This isn’t to suggest there cannot be or cannot exist a morality which can, by reason, by logic, persuasively prohibit certain actions, but your approach of just invoking “morality” isn’t it.

And it is unclear “crazy morality ended legal, racial segregation and legal discrimination based on race.” But even if so, I’ll say that my tentative hunch is there’s a persuasive logic and reasoning to ending both, as opposed to the bare assertion of its immoral.

 

[untermensche]

And which morality is to be taught in law school?

The morality that recognizes victims and harm.

The morality for female genitalia mutilation as practiced in Africa, parts of the Middle East and some parts of Asia?

Sure. For something to be immoral there must be both harm and a victim.

If people are claiming to be victims of an unnecessary and destructive surgical procedure against their will then there is immorality.

Because an unnecessary and destructive procedure already is harm.

The morality that says homosexuality, lesbianism, are wrong?

No morality says that.

Ignorant primitive bigotry says that.

Where are the victims?

Where is the harm?

The morality which allowed pedophilia in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome?

Victims?

Victims claiming harm?

There probably were a few.

The morality permitting mistreatment of not only the Jews but the infirm and sick, in Nazi Germany?

No victims? No harm?

What your post ignores is that there is a morality where gays are sinners, along with transgender and lesbians.

That is not morality.

It is ignorant primitive superstition.

Show me the victim.

Show me the harm.

 

[James Madison]

The morality that recognizes victims and harm.



Sure. For something to be immoral there must be both harm and a victim.

If people are claiming to be victims of an unnecessary and destructive surgical procedure against their will then there is immorality.

Because an unnecessary and destructive procedure already is harm.

The morality that says homosexuality, lesbianism, are wrong?

No morality says that.

Ignorant primitive bigotry says that.

Where are the victims?

Where is the harm?

The morality which allowed pedophilia in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome?

Victims?

Victims claiming harm?

There probably were a few.

The morality permitting mistreatment of not only the Jews but the infirm and sick, in Nazi Germany?

No victims? No harm?

What your post ignores is that there is a morality where gays are sinners, along with transgender and lesbians.

That is not morality.

It is ignorant primitive superstition.

Show me the victim.

Show me the harm.

Yet, you assume that which causes a “harm” is immoral. Is it? How do you know? It rationally cannot be because you’ve said so, because you’ve typed it.

The difficulty with your argument is you presume what you are saying is universal, like gravity causing objects to fall to earth at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared, or 2 plus 2 is 4. This then allows you to proclaim other moral beliefs and moral codes aren’t moral. And your proclamation some other moral belief isn’t moral is just your claim and isn’t any superior to anyone else’s view they have moral beliefs.

Yet, history shows morality hasn’t been static, including religious morality. Morality has changed through the pages of history. Morality has not been universal among human beings. History is replete with instances of different moral codes among the people residing in the same city states, States, and empires. History is replete with examples of different morality among the many different cultures, city states, States, and empires.

You play the role of Pythia in the Greek temple, divining from the gods or eternal universe what isn’t the correct morality and what is the correct morality.

You can claim Phillips’ belief isn’t moral but that’s just your mere proclamation and isn’t superior to Phillips claim that IS his moral belief.

 

[untermensche]

Yet, you assume that which causes a “harm” is immoral. Is it? How do you know? It rationally cannot be because you’ve said so, because you’ve typed it.

What I said that you twisted was that IF there is immorality there must be harm and a victim.

Tell me about some immorality that does not involve harm and a victim to show my error.

The difficulty with your argument is you presume what you are saying is universal, like gravity causing objects to fall to earth at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared, or 2 plus 2 is 4. This then allows you to proclaim other moral beliefs and moral codes aren’t moral. And your proclamation some other moral belief isn’t moral is just your claim and isn’t any superior to anyone else’s view they have moral beliefs.

Prove it is not universal.

Show me immorality where there is no harm and no victim.

Then prove it is immorality.

 

[James Madison]

Yet, you assume that which causes a “harm” is immoral. Is it? How do you know? It rationally cannot be because you’ve said so, because you’ve typed it.

What I said that you twisted was that IF there is immorality there must be harm and a victim.

Tell me about some immorality that does not involve harm and a victim to show my error.

The difficulty with your argument is you presume what you are saying is universal, like gravity causing objects to fall to earth at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared, or 2 plus 2 is 4. This then allows you to proclaim other moral beliefs and moral codes aren’t moral. And your proclamation some other moral belief isn’t moral is just your claim and isn’t any superior to anyone else’s view they have moral beliefs.

Prove it is not universal.

Show me immorality where there is no harm and no victim.

Then prove it is immorality.

Prove it is not universal.

Burden shift much? It makes sense to you for someone to prove something doesn’t exist? That’s what you asking me to do, to “prove” a universal morality doesn’t exist. How does one prove with evidence the non-existence of something? Of course there isn’t going to be any evidence of existence if it is nonexistent.

That’s why the burden is on the person claiming or assuming something exists because, logically, things that exist leave evidence of their existence.

It’s your burden to show the existence of a universal morality, as you assume such existence in your argument.

And of course you want to shift the burden, because you possibly sense the very difficult task of establishing the existence of a universal morality. So, better to shift the burden to the other side, but doing so doesn’t change the fact you haven’t established a universal morality exists, one in which you need for your argument, specifically the way and manner you have articulated your argument.

 

[untermensche]

What I said that you twisted was that IF there is immorality there must be harm and a victim.

Tell me about some immorality that does not involve harm and a victim to show my error.



Prove it is not universal.

Show me immorality where there is no harm and no victim.

Then prove it is immorality.

Prove it is not universal.

Burden shift much? It makes sense to you for someone to prove something doesn’t exist? That’s what you asking me to do, to “prove” a universal morality doesn’t exist. How does one prove with evidence the non-existence of something? Of course there isn’t going to be any evidence of existence if it is nonexistent.

That’s why the burden is on the person claiming or assuming something exists because, logically, things that exist leave evidence of their existence.

It’s your burden to show the existence of a universal morality, as you assume such existence in your argument.

And of course you want to shift the burden, because you possibly sense the very difficult task of establishing the existence of a universal morality. So, better to shift the burden to the other side, but doing so doesn’t change the fact you haven’t established a universal morality exists, one in which you need for your argument, specifically the way and manner you have articulated your argument.

This is a cheap worthless dodge.

I say for there to be immorality there must be harm and a victim and all you have to do to prove it is not a universal is to show me some immorality without harm and a victim and also prove it is immorality.

If you think doing harm to a victim is not immoral you are worthless.

 

[James Madison]

Burden shift much? It makes sense to you for someone to prove something doesn’t exist? That’s what you asking me to do, to “prove” a universal morality doesn’t exist. How does one prove with evidence the non-existence of something? Of course there isn’t going to be any evidence of existence if it is nonexistent.

That’s why the burden is on the person claiming or assuming something exists because, logically, things that exist leave evidence of their existence.

It’s your burden to show the existence of a universal morality, as you assume such existence in your argument.

And of course you want to shift the burden, because you possibly sense the very difficult task of establishing the existence of a universal morality. So, better to shift the burden to the other side, but doing so doesn’t change the fact you haven’t established a universal morality exists, one in which you need for your argument, specifically the way and manner you have articulated your argument.

This is a cheap worthless dodge.

If you think doing harm to a victim is not immoral you are worthless.

This is a cheap worthless dodge.

Says the person shifting the burden.

I say for there to be immorality there must be harm and a victim and all you have to do to prove it is not a universal is to show me some immorality without harm and a victim and also prove it is immorality.

No, you are burden shifting again. You are asking me to A) Refute something you haven’t shown to exist, a universal morality parallel to laws of nature. You ASSUME “must be harm and a victim” is a universal moral necessity, but you have no evidence to support it and no reasoned argument for its existence.

Next, Phillips adheres to a moral philosophy where immoral actions include no victim and harm to another person. What’s your retort? To summarily claim, based on nothing else than your act of proclaiming, that specific moral beliefs by Phillips isn’t morality.

And in case you are oblivious to the obvious, I’m expressing incredulity towards the idea a universal moral code can be shown to exist. So, it doesn’t make any sense for to invite me to show immorality. Likely at best all I could demonstrate is what I think is immorality.

The issue underlying your argument is your god like powers of determining for others what is or isn’t morality and immorality based on nothing more than you’ve typed it. Well, there’s no shortage of people who have written on the subject matter of morality. Kant, Mills, Rawls, Bentham, Plato, Aristotle, Bentham, Nozick, Moses (or the OT writers), Paul and NT authors, authors of the Koran, Jesus, Buddha, all spoke about morality, with each assuming if not claiming they have the right, best, preferred, logical, or universal moral philosophy.

You are but one more with an opinion, and one more who treats their opinion as universal.

Your view of morality isn’t shown to be superior to anyone else’s view of morality. Oh you say it is, but saying it doesn’t make it so.

You evaluate this fact pattern through your personal lens of what is free speech, declare for others what is or isn’t free speech based on nothing more than you’ve typed it, you’ve claimed it. You augment that with your personal moral perception, declaring for others what is or isn’t morality. That’s the flaw, your argument is aptly reduced to an argument of because you say so.

Then you preach freedom, so long as the freedom is exercised in a manner you find palatable. But that isn’t freedom, and freedom includes engaging in conduct, having beliefs, that others dislike, disapprove of, despise and hate.

 

[untermensche]

Next, Phillips adheres to a moral philosophy where immoral actions include no victim and harm to another person. What’s your retort? To summarily claim, based on nothing else than your act of proclaiming, that specific moral beliefs by Phillips isn’t morality.

And I say that is not rationally possible.

Prove there can be immorality without harm and a victim.

You need to give me a case where it exists and prove it exists.

I can't prove a negative.

 

[James Madison]

Next, Phillips adheres to a moral philosophy where immoral actions include no victim and harm to another person. What’s your retort? To summarily claim, based on nothing else than your act of proclaiming, that specific moral beliefs by Phillips isn’t morality.

I can't prove a negative.

You aren’t being asked to prove a negative. You have been asked to prove an affirmative claim. You’ve assumed a universal morality, a morality that exists objectively and independently of human existence, tantamount to a law of nature. That’s your burden to show it exists.

And I say that is not rationally possible. You need to give me a case where it exists and prove it exists. Prove there can be immorality without harm and a victim.

First, to address the latter point. Moral codes, as I understand them, address, inter alia, behavior, action, and conduct. When the moral code is breached, the breach is immoral. So, your claim it is “irrational” for immorality to not involve a victim and a harm is to say a moral code not involving a victim and harm to the victim is irrational and isn’t morality. This means, according to your view, morality must involve a victim and harm to a victim and the absence of one means no morality is applicable ans hence, immorality isn’t in okay. And that is exactly what you’ve claimed, morality must have a harm and victim and it follows based on your logic, immorality must involve a victim and harm to the victim.

So, if you are asking me to show a morality without a victim and harm to the victim exists objectively and independently of humans, such that breaches of this morality are immoral, then you have not been paying close attention. As I said before, I’m questioning any such kind of morality can be shown to exist.

Now, from a human construct perspective, there are moral concepts lacking a victim and harm to the victim. Human beings have conceived, constructed, and lived by such a particular morality.

First, some religious people, such as some Jews, Christians and Muslims, have the view same sex acts between consenting adults violates a moral command not to enaged in such behavior, hence to do so is immoral. Members of those faiths view lying as immoral, including no victim and no harm to a victim (kid lies to mom and dad about what time he went to bed). Failing to rest on the Sabbath is inconsistent with the moral precept of some to rest one day a week and for some others to rest on a specific day, and as such is immoral.

Now, if your retort is, once again, to declare that’s irrational, no moral code of this kind exists, then again on what basis do you do so? To do so strikes me as needing some exclusive and exhaustive universal moral code that exists independently of us, as a law of nature, for you to say X isn’t morality.

 

[untermensche]

You’ve assumed a universal morality, a morality that exists objectively and independently of human existence, tantamount to a law of nature. That’s your burden to show it exists.

I have given you the only possible way to recognize objective immorality. If there is harm and a victim then the act was immoral. Victim meaning somebody the act was directed against and someone who's actions do not justify the harm.

You simply won't engage with it.

First, to address the latter point. Moral codes, as I understand them, address, inter alia, behavior, action, and conduct.

You then must prove every code is really moral to say it is really a moral code.

When the moral code is breached, the breach is immoral.

If you can prove the code is moral you can prove the breach is immoral. Appealing to the dictates of gods is nothing a rational human can accept.

If a victim is harmed there is no question there was immorality.

It is the only way to know that immorality has occurred.

So, your claim it is “irrational” for immorality to not involve a victim and a harm is to say a moral code not involving a victim and harm to the victim is irrational and isn’t morality.

Any code that says harming a victim is not immoral is not a moral code.

It is an arbitrary code created with some ulterior motive. Usually a way to control other people.

Show me one act that is immoral that does not involve harm and a victim. Then prove it is immoral.

One act.

That's what it will take.

First, some religious people, such as some Jews, Christians and Muslims, have the view same sex acts between consenting adults violates a moral command not to enaged in such behavior, hence to do so is immoral.

No such command exists.

And silly delusions don't constitute acceptable arguments.

The claims of the religious to define morality are nonsense.

They have no special ability or tools to do it.

The god of the old testament is an immoral neurotic god-child.

 

[Jarhyn]

I have given you the only possible way to recognize objective immorality. If there is harm and a victim then the act was immoral. Victim meaning somebody the act was directed against and someone who's actions do not justify the harm.

You simply won't engage with it.



You then must prove every code is really moral to say it is really a moral code.

When the moral code is breached, the breach is immoral.

If you can prove the code is moral you can prove the breach is immoral. Appealing to the dictates of gods is nothing a rational human can accept.

If a victim is harmed there is no question there was immorality.

It is the only way to know that immorality has occurred.

So, your claim it is “irrational” for immorality to not involve a victim and a harm is to say a moral code not involving a victim and harm to the victim is irrational and isn’t morality.

Any code that says harming a victim is not immoral is not a moral code.

It is an arbitrary code created with some ulterior motive. Usually a way to control other people.

Show me one act that is immoral that does not involve harm and a victim. Then prove it is immoral.

One act.

That's what it will take.

First, some religious people, such as some Jews, Christians and Muslims, have the view same sex acts between consenting adults violates a moral command not to enaged in such behavior, hence to do so is immoral.

No such command exists.

And silly delusions don't constitute acceptable arguments.

The claims of the religious to define morality are nonsense.

They have no special ability or tools to do it.

The god of the old testament is an immoral neurotic god-child.

More, most people are mostly right most of the time. There's been this idea that there is some binding set of rules which people get on better for enforcing. It has emerged countless times in countless societies... Or perhaps it just emerged once really early and stuck around very persistently.

Regardless though of how it got here and why it stuck around (hint: for the same reason any adaptation is vigorously maintained): it models a principle of the universe.

 

[untermensche]

If you can prove doing harm with save millions you could possibly do the lesser harm.

That is the morality of harm reduction.

I would love to see anyone PROVE beyond doubt they are doing deliberate harm to save people.

Israel tortured captured prisoners so they could assassinate leaders of a valid resistance.

Not to save anybody.

If they wanted to save people they would have made peace a long time ago.

 

[James Madison]

You then must prove every code is really moral to say it is really a moral code.

When the moral code is breached, the breach is immoral.

So, your claim it is “irrational” for immorality to not involve a victim and a harm is to say a moral code not involving a victim and harm to the victim is irrational and isn’t morality.

Any code that says harming a victim is not immoral is not a moral code.

It is an arbitrary code created with some ulterior motive. Usually a way to control other people.

Show me one act that is immoral that does not involve harm and a victim. Then prove it is immoral.

One act.

That's what it will take.

First, some religious people, such as some Jews, Christians and Muslims, have the view same sex acts between consenting adults violates a moral command not to enaged in such behavior, hence to do so is immoral.

No such command exists.

And silly delusions don't constitute acceptable arguments.

The claims of the religious to define morality are nonsense.

They have no special ability or tools to do it.

The god of the old testament is an immoral neurotic god-child.

I have given you the only possible way to recognize objective immorality. If there is harm and a victim then the act was immoral. Victim meaning somebody the act was directed against and someone who's actions do not justify the harm.

You simply won't engage with it.

Oh? So you think your act of telling me what you’ve said is “objective morality” makes it “objective morality”? No, you have told me what you personally think is morality but that doesn’t make what you’ve said or spoke about “objective” and it doesn’t render your subject matter as “objective morality.” Objective means, at least in part, something exists independent of our opinions on it. Hence, when we throw items up in the air, all else being equal, they fall back down, and that is objective and meets the meaning of objective. It isn’t at all established what you’ve described as “morality” is objective.

You then must prove every code is really moral to say it is really a moral code.

You are missing the concept. A moral is a principle or teaching of what is right, wrong, ethical, unethical. Moral codes are a collection of them. That’s about all it takes.

If you can prove the code is moral you can prove the breach is immoral. Appealing to the dictates of gods is nothing a rational human can accept.

If a victim is harmed there is no question there was immorality.

It is the only way to know that immorality has occurred.

It doesn’t make it any less a moral code, and the efficacy and rationality of the moral code is based on its substance, not whether there’s a belief the moral code came from God/god. What I referenced isn’t rendered as not being a moral code just because you said so.

You do not get to decide what is or isn’t “moral” or “morality” for the rest of us.

No such command exists.

And silly delusions don't constitute acceptable arguments.

The claims of the religious to define morality are nonsense.

They have no special ability or tools to do it.

The god of the old testament is an immoral neurotic god-child.

Neither do you have any “special ability or tools to” define morality for the rest of us. It is fine to disagree with religious morality but your disagreement but that doesn’t make it any less a moral code.

 

[untermensche]

Oh? So you think your act of telling me what you’ve said is “objective morality” makes it “objective morality”?

It requires a person who has ever cared about morality and examined it to understand.

We are talking about "personal" morality.

The morality of one individual having a gender transition.

There is nobody else involved.

To talk about human morality requires a few stipulations:

1. It requires that humans are free to act and to not act.
2. It requires the understanding that humans can be harmed by both action and inaction.
3. It requires that the individual is the responsible agent for their freely chosen actions.

If these things don't exist then there is no such thing as morality. The baker is deluded to even mention the word.

I do not accept a claim that thoughts can be immoral. That would have to be proven first for you to claim it is possible.

You are free to engage with my arguments but all you are doing is dodging them.

The issue is the morality of a transsexual wanting to celebrate something transsexuals might reasonably want to celebrate.

It is "personal morality of action". It does not involve any other person.

I claim that if a deliberate action causes real harm and there is a victim honestly claiming harm you have an immoral action. You can try to dispute this. Try.

"Victim" is defined as a person who was deliberately harmed by a person but there was no justification for the harm, the person harmed is an "innocent". An innocent victim.

If you can give me one example of an action where a victim is deliberately harmed that is not immoral you have shown me wrong. You must of course prove it is not immoral.

If you claim an immoral act must contain more than harm and a victim you can freely make that argument.

If you say deliberately harming a victim is not immoral you can make your case.

Neither do you have any “special ability or tools to” define morality for the rest of us.

Nowhere have I defined morality.

I talk about the rational requirements for an action to be labeled as immoral.

The baker is making the wild and totally unsubstantiated argument that a transsexual celebrating their transition somehow is immoral.

Where is the victim?

 

[untermensche]

Harm does not have to be objectively defined to say that doing harm is a feature of immorality.

Is it possible for an action or inaction to be immoral when nobody is harmed?