Total posts: 7,093
-->
@RationalMadman
Being powerful or even truly capable doesn't excuse narcissism.
Created:
Evil is subjective by nature and therefore unless you agree to a common standard with your interlocutor the conversation will break down at "is x really evil though?"
Created:
Posted in:
They have to do something for others to know it and react to it.
While this is true your reaction is not what makes a person trans. It is entirely an internal matter. The truth is that this internal state is no one else's buisness. No one can make you trans by treating you as though you are a trans person and I imagine you would find it a little offensive. The reverse is also reasonable to regard as true. Even if gender were a choice you could not change someone else's gender for them. You could at best punish them for not conforming to social norms.
the internal state means nothing towards that unless the person acts and makes externally, verbally clear that their internal state is that way.
Please explain why anyone needs your recognition in order to be a trans person? You are talking about "passing" which is a seperate issue. In fact much transphobia ends up being directed towards cis people who have traits that are ordinarily associated with the opposite gender. A masculine cis woman or a pre trans mTf trans are far more likely to be reported as a "man in the bathroom" than many fTm trans people who are able to "pass".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You are saying some do less or more than others prior to demanding that people use their preferred pronouns
I'm saying that you are already making a number of assumptions just in this opening line.
No one has to do anything to realize that they are in fact not comfortable living as the gender they were assigned at birth and the pronouns used by others, while it would be polite to use their pronouns and while it is strictly speaking inaccurate not to, has nothing to do with this internal state.
One does not decide to be trans they realize that they are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
They literally can/do, they become a trans woman or trans man respectively, if they choose to transition.
No physical transition is necessary for someone to come to the realization that their personal identity does not match the gender they were assigned and since they did not choose which gender to be assigned it is by extension not under their control whether they will have to transition or not in order to be correctly gendered by others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm surprised at you. One does not choose the gender they are assigned at birth and so they have no control over whether or not they agree with that decision.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Neither a feminine man nor a masculine woman is a trans person and they cannot become one through choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
No one chooses to identify as a different gendered than they were assigned at birth than you chose to identify as being the gender you were assigned at birth. It is easy to feel like you have a choice when your preferences are by coincidence aligned with societal norms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
How do you know the Quran is true? The bible and the Quran seem equally silly to me as an associated third party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Subjective merely means dependent upon the opinion or perspective of some subject. You simply haven't done anything to convince me that humans have a purpose that isn't dependent upon the opinion and/or perspective of some human(s).
If you have some alternative definition of subjective or you would like to reformulate your argument with this definition in mind you are welcome to but under this definition of subjective any purpose is subjective. Purpose is a thing that is dependent upon the subject.
Repeatedly insisting that this is not e will not change anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What makes a standard subjective?
Being dependent upon the opinion or perspective of some (not necessarily human) subject.
You do not justify a sphere is a sphere,
And yet you will find I think that you will be expected to justify your actions.
Values and morals obviously do not exist in a universe without life
Because they depend upon some subject to hold/express them. Definitionally that is subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I'm not just going to accept that whatever you tell me my purpose is must be my purpose and I can't imagine I could explain your purpose to you either. Each human must give themselves purpose and this is entirely subjective. This telos, if you gave one, is not an objective matter if it is dependent upon the subject.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
One does not choose to be transgender either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
There is no one objectively correct design for a knife and no objectively correct moral standard. It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you are trying to follow the dictates of a probably fictional god then your goal is not human wellbeing and we will perforce be at odds when these two goals come into conflict.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
You cannot define my position for me and doing so will never change my actual position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
What makes a knife a good knife is largely subjective to your goal. A pairing knife must be sharp but a putty knife must be dull. No one knife design is objectively correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Please define man/woman in the context in which you are using them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
You seem to be misunderstanding me on purpose. I don't care if protecting human interests is right or wrong. If it were provably and objectively morally incorrect I would still want to protect human interests and I think if you are honest with yourself you would feel the same. I would resist the extinction of humans even if it were the only way save a much more enlightened and morally upstanding race if beings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Both what is good and the shape of the earth are natural facts of reality.
Then please demonstrate the natural fact of what is good with the kind of objective evidence that you have for the shape of the earth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
How does pursuing your stated priorities differ from a moral code?
If someone claims homosexuality is immoral I can say "I don't care if it is immoral they aren't hurting anyone" and oppose them in these grounds. If someone claims that they have a divine mandate to own some people or take their land then I can say "I don't care if it is morally justified you are hurting people" and oppose them on those grounds.
IF morality is subjective THEN it is besides the point.
And
IF morality is objective THEN I only support it in a much as it supports human wellbeing and the public health.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I want to make it clear that I don't care what the majority of philosophers agree on. Anecdotal evidence and opinions do not become facts no matter how many people agree with you.
Disagreeing with someone about the moral implications of homosexuality (if there even are any) for example is not the same as disagreement about the shape of the earth. One is measurable and observable. The other you must either decide for yourself or take the word of some humans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Survival is not a subjective matter. You either are alive or you are not. It is not opinion based.
What I said is more akin to saying "I don't care about the rules of chess I just want to win". This is not a nonsense statement. One can observe the rules of chess without caring about the rules simply because it is in line with tour actual concerns to do so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Imagine a baby with only female chromosomes but which is born with a penis.
Is this a female boy or a girl with a penis?
This is not by any means a hypothetical situation either. Babies are sometimes born who match this description.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
My stance remains that I am disinterested in the concept of morality and instead only in the effects of actions on human wellbeing and the public health.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Unfortunately you don't have to be trying to hurt someone to hurt them and you don't have to be trying to give bigots ammunition for you to hand them some unintentionally.
When you conflate biological sex wwith the social construct of gender that is exactly what you are doing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As is a female, that thinks she is male.
This is not I believe the state of a trans man. I believe that if you asked them their stance (which I highly encourage you to do rather than simply imagining what it might be for yourself) you will find that many view sex as separate from gender.
I am nonetheless fully supportive of personal freedom to choose.
Your argument, even if well intentioned and factually accurate (if it is in fact either), is both beside the point and damaging to the personal freedom of choice that you say you support.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I would advertise my morality as objective. Everything but axioms are relative to something, normally when one says "moral relativist" they mean morals relative to whims. Morals that are not relative to values is not defined.
IF you have chosen a subjective standard THEN you can make objective statements based on that standard BUT that doesn't make your standard anything other than subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Is everyone on this site a moral relativist? What arguments have made it so popular here or is it just coincidence?
I'm pretty sure it is our observations of humans holding different moral values subjectively that has convinced us that morals are subjective rather than any particular argument.
Created:
Posted in:
Even the notion of objectivity is subjective, or more correctly, data subject to the same processes of internal manipulation.It's not that morals are independent and definitive objects that float about and occasionally bump you on the head.
Well stated.
They are created inside your head....And disinterested or not you will still possess some data sequences that resemble what is loosely regarded as morality.
Well
IF morality is subjective THEN I have already given you my standards
And
IF morality is objective and it doesn't support my standard THEN I don't give a fig about being moral.
My argument has the charm (if you want to call it that) of being equally effective when arguing with moral realists and moral relativist alike.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Morality is a code of behavior derived from values, to list off values and then say "despite morality" is like adding cinnamon despite taste.If your values are wellbeing and public health, then a morality is implied by that.If you mean to say the values you listed supersede all your other values or any value anyone else may hold... congratulations you are now at level 0 of the ethics tech tree. Everybody from Hitler to mother Theresa has values and pursues them.
Tell that to someone who thinks morals are an objective thing.
As for other values I don't know what considerations should be more important than human wellbeing and the public health (assuming we can even discover what makes us well and healthy)
And by the way you could hardly have found two humans that were worse for human wellbeing and the public health than Hitler and mother Theresa. That one is generally considered immoral and the other moral speaks volumes about moral opinions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I don't understand something as "morality" if its not built on human well-being. That's all I'm saying.
Well I've gotten enough pushback (particularly from theists and particularly excusing the probably fictional actions of their probably fictional god(s)) over the years that I've grown tired of arguing about what morality is and just want to promote the things that are good for us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I'm curious to know why you think I don't respect you. I've always treated you as an equal and with the same consideration as any other interlocutor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
How can you be so sure? Is that some you ask everyone you meet? Knowing your rabid hatred I'm not sure why you would expect honesty from your friends. Also I would be your friend if you would have me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Charming and even tempered as always. Part of me missed you poly. Not a sane or rational part but a part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
The same issue exists for many marginalized groups and this marginalization is often justified with religious beliefs. Atheists and homosexuals are both often considered "evil" by majority consensus religious reasoning. May I suggest that a true separation of church and state might make your proposed study more feasible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Some atheists risk real harm to their relationships or even real bodily harm when they "come out" I do not judge them for being reticent to discuss their views under these circumstances.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
They would never tell them they think they have a mental defect. They would never tell them they think they're immoral and evil.
I have never done as you accuse here. In fact the while point of this thread is that I am unconcerned with morality, good and evil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
No PhD ethicist can speak for me and I am not speaking for them.
Perhaps you are using the word subjective differently than I am. If so it would be nice to know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Atheist or way more honest about what they think on forms than they are in the real world because they know if they said that stuff to people's faces it would be rejected.
I was actually discussing this with my colleagues this morning
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I am not proposing anything.
Standards are dependent upon some subject to hold them. The identity of the subject is unimportant.
Once a standard is accepted you can make objective statements based on the standard. It objectively wrong to move a king as if it were a queen if we have agreed to play chess. This doesn't make the rules of chess other than subjective and arbitrary.
Water boils at 100 and 212 degrees. Both these numbers are objectively accurate depending on the subjective standard we are using in our measurements (ignoring considerations like altitude, salinity etc and just for the purposes of example).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
The word wrong can only be used subjectively. Moving the king as though it were the queen is only "wrong" in the subjective context of playing chess. When you say this or that is wrong you have introduced subjectivity into the conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Is production of sperm what makes you a "real" man? If so then what about cis males who are infertile? Are they men or women or neither?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
So you claim. You seem to be constantly presupposing moral relativism despite having no justification for it.
All standards, not just moral stabdards, are subjective. If it is a standard it is a subjective standard. Often once a standard is established objective statements can be made using the the standard but that does not make it the standard itself any less subjective.
You do realize it is actually a prominent debate on whether moral realism is intuition
Call it whatever you want when you are outraged by someone's "immoral" behavior you are experiencing an emotional reaction. Emotions are not rational.
If you see a specific problem with my logic then please explain the logical flaw or offer a necessary counterfactual.
If you think we are having trouble with definitions you are welcome to offer or request some definition for some specific term.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Let me try another way of asking since we don't seem to be making any headway.
How do you decide whether it is reasonable to believe that the earth is round or flat given that there is some disagreement on the subject? What in your estimation makes one more reasonable than the other?
Created:
Posted in:
isn't "my subjective standard".
Any standard is necessarily subjective. This is true regardless of the subject. That it is not your standard doesn't make it other than subjective.
you do not prioritize being rational
Your moral intuition is an emotion. That twist you feel in your guts when even a stranger is treated unfairly or attacked by knavery or ambush. That is a caveman feeling that wants to smash "bad" people with rocks. It does not come from a rational place.
On the other hand recognizing one's vested interest in human wellbeing as a human and a member of the public is fairly reasonable. Unless we have a different definition of reasonable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
You are welcome to use human wellbeing and the public health as your subjective standard but that is not what I am doing.
I intend to promote human wellbeing and protect the public health DESPITE the moral implications not BECAUSE of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Soft solipsism is not something that you can resolve. If that is a problem for me it is equally a problem for you.
Let's say this experience is an illusion. The "laws of physics" still governs "reality" and "I" am still having a better experience because of "our" understanding of physics and there is still no evidence of any supernatural claim in the way there is evidence of the laws of physics.
Even if this experience is solipsistic I am still better off employing a healthy skepticism within the context of the experience itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
People disagree about what moral standard to use. I am disinterested in such discussions. I merely want to promote human wellbeing and protect the public health. I do not care what any government or god or horoscope has to say about ethics. In any case where to the best of my understanding any moral stance doesn't support these two considerations I do not support morality.
In fact even if there were some objective standard I am still disinterested in morality for morality sake. If it doesn't serve human wellbeing and the public good then morality may take a long walk off a short pier.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
We seem to be having a communication breakdown.
If by rational you mean strongly evidenced then anecdotal evidence, no matter how much personal testimony you amass, can never be rational cause for belief. Rational beliefs are based upon reasonable expectations based on independently corroborated evidence. Beliefs based on logical fallacies (like the argument from popularity fallacy that your methodology leaves you vulnerable to) are not in my estimation rational.
Perhaps we define rational differently?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
The appearance of magic is not magic.
I would accept this as an axiom until some magic can be positively identified.
I await the magimeter.
Created: