Where Do Natural Rights Come From?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Loin - I have these morals because I believe that they are better. in a subjective view, they are better, but objectivly they are the same. Who am I to say that what the Nazi's did was wrong? According to them, what they did was right. According to what I believe in, what they did was wrong. Which one is right objectivly?

[Ramo]

*Bumping the thread for later.* (too busy/tired to respond now)

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Loin - I have these morals because I believe that they are better.

Yes, but why? How are they better, in your opinion?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Loin, I understand that, but who decides what is harmful and helpful for the purposes of classifying? Or does that not matter? If two moral precepts both can classify the harmful effects similarly, who wins out? Can you decide who wins out in that case? IMO, many moral beliefs do a similar job in classification of harmful and helpful classifications.

F'rinstance, you won't find a society/culture/whatever the world over that employs a system of logic in which A == ~A.

What about we need war for peace? I know, I know... I just felt like saying that .

Though while I am quoting this thread, since no moral system is illogical and are basically (IMO) the same in classifying harmful and helpful effects (based on what those societies believe that means), then how to pick who is better?

That's cultural relativism.

So?

Suppose we have Nazi Germany and the people in power believe that the Jews should be exterminated. Does this make their action right simply because the people in power believe it to be?

Yes. If they won WW2, most of us would be praising the 'Final Solution'. Morals usually flow from who wins.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I believe that my morals are better then the Nazi's because I do not believe in the wholesale or individual-sale slaughter of anyone. Therefore, I believe that mine are better because the Nazi moral obviously believed that killing is fine. Now, objectively, does that make my morals better? From a neutral standpoint it doesnt. Just because you believe in something, it doesnt mean that it is the right thing. No one can say that what the Nazi's did was wrong, because some people did believe in it. Does it make them wrong? Only from my standpoint.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If two moral precepts both can classify the harmful effects similarly, who wins out?

If the two systems behave identically then I don't see why there would be a need to differentiate between them.

Though while I am quoting this thread, since no moral system is illogical and are basically (IMO) the same in classifying harmful and helpful effects (based on what those societies believe that means), then how to pick who is better?

First off, what do you mean when you say "no moral system is illogical"? If a moral system is self-contradictory, then it is illogical. If it is inconsistent, then it is illogical. If it fails to satisfy the principle of causation, then it is illogical. There have been (and still are) many moral systems that fail one or more of these basic tests of rationality.

Furthermore, different systems are often not the same in classifying harmful/helpful effects. For example, the Nazis were not particularly helpful to the Jews by any reasonable definition of the word "help" -- on the contrary, they were quite harmful to the Jews, by any reasonable definition of the word "harm." Even if two systems classify the same actions in the same categories, they may still not be equal, e.g. one system may be more efficient in its classification than another (an analogous example being the difference between the American system of measurement and the Metric system of measurement -- they both have the same capabilities, but the latter system is more efficient and is thus superior).

And, generally, there doesn't need to be a grand social consensus as to what is "helpful" and "harmful" -- all that needs to exist is common sense/basic survival instincts. If an action will help me, then it is helpful. If it will harm me, then it is harmful. By extension, if an action will help or harm somebody else then that action is helpful or harmful, respectively. If somebody has a radically skewed view as to what is helpful/harmful, then they are potentially a menace to others, but they are at the same time a menace to themselves, so they are unlikely to survive for long enough (or to maintain their skewed classification system) for long enough to cause much damage.

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
...I do not believe in the wholesale or individual-sale slaughter of anyone.

Why?

[GePap]

On the question of consistency: It is bovious that absolute relativism is impossible (nothing relevitve can be absolute, no?) but when it comes to human morality,a s I said, there are limits. Any moral code in which parents must kill their children would quickly die, since it would not spread at all and lead to the death fo the group.

As for Loin's question, why do we use the set of moral standards we use if there are no aboslutes: I think and individual uses the moral code a) he/she is first intructed in, and then modifies this original moral code according to new information they aquire and personal quirks and opinions. Take the Nazi moral code. It does not come out of thin air: it was derived from various aspects of the late-19th century European moral code and new "scientific" theories of the time. For exmaple, the Nazis fundamentaly believed in progress, in man's ability to imporve his lot through science and knowledge.

Oh, something else: we keep talking about Nazi morals: anyone care to tell the rest fo the class what they were?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by GePap
As for Loin's question, why do we use the set of moral standards we use if there are no aboslutes

Careful there -- I never said that we needed absolutes. I've said in previous threads (e.g. the one I linked to around post #40) that I don't believe in an absolute morality, or an absolute anything for that matter.

[Imran Siddiqui]

First off, what do you mean when you say "no moral system is illogical"? If a moral system is self-contradictory, then it is illogical. If it is inconsistent, then it is illogical. If it fails to satisfy the principle of causation, then it is illogical. There have been (and still are) many moral systems that fail one or more of these basic tests of rationality.

You said there was no society that believes A == ~A. That means that you believe that no society is self-contradictory, no?

Furthermore, different systems are often not the same in classifying harmful/helpful effects. For example, the Nazis were not particularly helpful to the Jews by any reasonable definition of the word "help" -- on the contrary, they were quite harmful to the Jews, by any reasonable definition of the word "harm." Even if two systems classify the same actions in the same categories, they may still not be equal, e.g. one system may be more efficient in its classification than another (an analogous example being the difference between the American system of measurement and the Metric system of measurement -- they both have the same capabilities, but the latter system is more efficient and is thus superior).

The Nazis simply used another classification structure for the Jews and other undesirables to what is helpful and harmful (mostly harmful, of course). What is wrong with that? Most moral systems, especially modern ones, are highly complex and cannot fall within ONLY one classification structure of what is helpful or harmful. In almost all moral societies there are different classification structures for different species.

Why does there have to be only one? Why does equality have to take precedent? It's highly subjective to state that.

Furthermore, why do logical moral reasonings take precedence over illogical moral reasonings? That too is subjective. I'd consider Christianity more illogical than Stalinist communism, but I'd take Christianity, myself.

Basically preferences among moral systems are all subjective, whether you base them on logicalness (I know, I made that word up) or whathaveyou.

This, loin, is why I said we should agree to disagree .

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes. If they won WW2, most of us would be praising the 'Final Solution'. Morals usually flow from who wins.

So might makes right? Would you be among those praising the Holocaust if the Nazis won?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, might makes right. I've never said otherwise. However, whether might SHOULD make right is a decision for your yourself to make.

And maybe. I don't know because it never turned out that way. However, it would be totally naive of me to say catagorically I'd NEVER support the Holocaust even if the Nazis won. How could anyone really say that without getting laughed at.

[GePap]

Well, I guess I have to answer my own question, though I assume my answer will be debated.

A few things were key to Nazi's:

1) Nation is the basis of the system. An individual is born to a nation (so their definition of nation is not only simply ethno-linguistic), and his duty is to the nation. He can only achieve fulfilment through the nation and in works for it.

2) the world of man is comparble to any bilogical system. Competition is constant, healthy, and deadly. Nations compete as biological units. Like biological units, some are better adapted, or bound to be more sucessful than others. This sucess is key to future development.

3) The Nation is also the sole arbitrer of political systems. A nation must be a single political unit to be healthy and sucessful.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Don't forget the one leader, who lives the 'moral' life and is who all people in the society should look to for moral guidance.

[GePap]

Well, I have some problems with calling the fuhrer principle one fo the fundamental moral tenets of Nazi's. It is obviosuly critical for the political part, but I fail to see its basis given th basic tenets (and thus, one part of the internal problems of this sysstem as was put into practice)

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You said there was no society that believes A == ~A. That means that you believe that no society is self-contradictory, no?

So you're claiming that people are completely logical all of the time? Come on!

There is no society that can be self-contradictory and yet still be "logical," since no society would exist that accepts self-contradiction as being logically valid. A society (or a member of a society) that believes in something that is self-contradictory is therefore being illogical, regardless of the society in question.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The Nazis simply used another classification structure for the Jews and other undesirables to what is helpful and harmful (mostly harmful, of course). What is wrong with that?

It's inconsistent, as I noted in my first post addressed to you:

Originally posted by loinburger
...it is inconsistent (and therefore unreasonable) for you to perform a set of actions that would cause you to become morally indignant were said actions to be performed unto you...

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Most moral systems, especially modern ones, are highly complex and cannot fall within ONLY one classification structure of what is helpful or harmful. In almost all moral societies there are different classification structures for different species.

Yes, there is also a different moral structure for criminals, and often a different moral structure for the unborn or for the brain-dead. This is because such differences in classification can be made without necessarily violating causation, e.g. "Bob is immoral because he eats babies, therefore it is acceptable to lock him up because his lesser moral worth exempts him from reciprocation." Often causation is violated, though, e.g. "I don't like Bob, therefore he is of lesser moral worth simply because I do not happen to like him, so it is acceptable for me to punch him in the face." The former example can be applied reciprocally (the person performing the classification expects to be treated similarly to Bob if the person were to ever eat babies), while the latter example cannot (the person would not consider himself/herself to be of lesser moral worth simply because Bob does not happen to like him/her, and would not accept Bob's dislike of him/her as a reasonable justification for Bob punching him/her in the face, but on the contrary would be indignant at such an assault).

Why does there have to be only one? Why does equality have to take precedent? It's highly subjective to state that.

If a reasonable justification can be provided as to why somebody else is of lesser moral worth, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to fail to reciprocate with them to some extent or another. Barring such a justification, reciprocation is necessary to maintain consistency -- there is no valid reason to believe that you are somehow of greater (or lesser) moral worth than somebody else who is substantively equivalent to you. Without violating causality it isn't possible to justify the claim that the default moral worth of one person is different from the default moral worth of another person who is substantively equivalent (specifically: same general mental state, same criminal record). Simply saying that a default of equality is "highly subjective" just isn't going to cut it as a justification -- you need to explain why Occam's razor doesn't apply here.

Furthermore, why do logical moral reasonings take precedence over illogical moral reasonings?

Because logic == rationality, and a rational justification is objectively superior to an irrational justification. That's what it means to justify something -- to give reasons for it. Obviously, good reasons (rational reasons) are better than bad reasons (irrational reasons). Illogical moral reasonings are inferior because they are unjustified and unjustifiable.

Basically preferences among moral systems are all subjective, whether you base them on logicalness (I know, I made that word up) or whathaveyou.

Not true. A reasonable justification is better than an unreasonable justification, and a classification system that works is better than a classification system that doesn't work. A reasonably justified opinion is objectively superior to an unjustified opinion or an unreasonably justified opinion, regardless of the subject of the opinion.

This, loin, is why I said we should agree to disagree .

Why? Because you're going to keep crying "Subjective, subjective!" until I fall asleep?

[Berzerker]

LoA -

Berz - Simply by acknoledging that there is more then one type of morals. I may not believe in them, but I can still acknowledge that they exist and that they are no less moralistic then mine. Just because I refute them, dont mean that mine are better.

So who isn't acknowledging multiple moral systems? But I sure can try to determine which one's are valid or invalid, that doesn't make me arrogant. I just don't accept this notion that all "moral" systems are equal.

Tiny Pen!s -

Yeah, that's what I do, I also stalk around forums and jump in the new threads and scream 1st!!!!

So you were being hypocritical and now defend it by being sarcastic.

But seriously I saw the thread and the earlier one. I would be amazed if you start arguing with someone who disagrees with you and then you won't get the last word.

It's happened before.

That was a very long "fight" you had in that thread and you were the last to say anything.

And what condemnation do you have for all the people I was "fighting" with who stopped prior to my last post?

You honestly believe that is meaningless?

I believe your observations are hypocritical.

I got you all wrong? I'm sorry, I won't insult anymore maybe.

Do what you will, but I'm still waiting for you to support your accusation.

Btw how you prove a illogical person about his illogicalness (or whatever the word ) so that the person in question believes it? You don't, because he won't understand.

In other words, you can't support your accusation and blame me instead.

That's just my personal opinion don't get too upset about personal opinions of illogical hypocrites.

Hmm...I said you were being hypocritical, not illogical. How do you know if you're illogical if you can't prove it to yourself? If I say someone is being illogical, I explain why so they can see the flaw in their argument, you use it to insult people.

[GePap]

Some very good points lion: some minor issues.

Not true. A reasonable justification is better than an unreasonable justification, and a classification system that works is better than a classification system that doesn't work. A reasonably justified opinion is objectively superior to an unjustified opinion or an unreasonably justified opinion, regardless of the subject of the opinion.

What determines what works and what doesn't? longevity of the system? Efficiency? Different codes strive for different things. Do we judge sucess based on whether the code achieved its purported aim, or by a single standard? (I go with achieveing inherent aims)

You will catch hell for "reasonably". Judging the reasonableness of something is ussually based on your fundamental values, no? Two individuals who disagree on, for example, the existance and/or the quality of an afterlife will disgaree about wether some sort of death penalty for some crime is reasonable and hence justifiable or not. I think this is where so many of the problems come in, since disagreement on the basics leads to a different set of "reasonable assumptions".

So you're claiming that people are completely logical all of the time? Come on!

Imran is a faithful capitalist. What else do you expect?

Yes, there is also a different moral structure for criminals, and often a different moral structure for the unborn or for the brain-dead. This is because such differences in classification can be made without necessarily violating causation, e.g. "Bob is immoral because he eats babies, therefore it is acceptable to lock him up because his lesser moral worth exempts him from reciprocation." Often causation is violated, though, e.g. "I don't like Bob, therefore he is of lesser moral worth simply because I do not happen to like him, so it is acceptable for me to punch him in the face." The former example can be applied reciprocally (the person performing the classification expects to be treated similarly to Bob if the person were to ever eat babies), while the latter example cannot (the person would not consider himself/herself to be of lesser moral worth simply because Bob does not happen to like him/her, and would not accept Bob's dislike of him/her as a reasonable justification for Bob punching him/her in the face, but on the contrary would be indignant at such an assault).

I must generally agree here, but with some minor quibles. I do not see the individual attacked as being indignant as a 'proof'. After al, an individual atatcked "rightfully" might be indignant anyway. What is more important is your first point, that some level of consistent classifcation is needed. (I believe so since I see the prime function of morality as maintaining social order). Still, the very ilogical nature of man prevails. A king turned criminal is not very likely to be viewed equally as a poor criminal in a highly hierarchical society: after all, placing individuals in moral categories does not have to be a function solely of individual action. It also 'works' to determine the moral worth of an individual by inherent an inborn qualities. In such a system, someone deemed 'immoral" may very easily feel indignation daily since they expect their status to be determined by their own actions (this I must say, is a common and basic human trait, part of those biological limits all systmes must work within) and yet still accept their indignation, perhaps even see it as proof of their immorality.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by GePap
What determines what works and what doesn't? longevity of the system? Efficiency? Different codes strive for different things. Do we judge sucess based on whether the code achieved its purported aim, or by a single standard? (I go with achieveing inherent aims)

I'd say that systems should first be judged by whether they achieve their inherent aims, followed by efficiency, followed by longevity. That apsect is debateable, but what's important is that there is some means of determining which moral system is better/worse, not necessarily what that means may be (which is a new debate in and of itself).

You will catch hell for "reasonably". Judging the reasonableness of something is ussually based on your fundamental values, no?

Often the reasonableness of a statement can be judged by the meanings inherent to that which is being judged -- language isn't as culturally invariant as logic, but it's still much less variant than personal values.

F'rinstance, if I were to say "My beer can is a better basketball player than Michael Jordan, because my can is made out of aluminum and is filled with beer," then my claim is unreasonable simply because I have failed to understand the meaning of the game of basketball, since being composed out of aluminum and being filled with beer do not lend themselves to being a great basketball player (and, in fact, are probably detrimental). My own personal values (and the personal values of those judging my claim) aren't relevant in this case.

Similarly, if I were to say "Bob is immoral because I don't like him," then my claim is unreasonable simply because I've failed to understand the meaning of "morality" -- morality is a measure of goodness and badness in human action, not a measure of how likeable or unlikeable somebody is. Saying "Bob is immoral because I don't like him" is no different, in principle, than saying "Bob is poor because I don't like him" or "Bob is stupid because I don't like him" -- these claims are unreasonable because the person making the claims has failed to understand the definitions of "poor" and "stupid."

I do not see the individual attacked as being indignant as a 'proof'.

Agreed, the existence of indignation is evidence of the existence of morality, but it is not necessarily evidence that a particular action is moral/immoral. F'rinstance, if somebody steps on my foot then my first reaction may be one of indignation, but if after assessing the action I find that the person accidentally stepped on my foot then I'll discard my initial emotive response when classifying the action (in this case as a "clumsy" action rather than as an "immoral" action).

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, might makes right. I've never said otherwise. However, whether might SHOULD make right is a decision for your yourself to make.

Yes, but "right" is not exactly the same as "moral". You wrote somewhere earlier here "After all every law is legislated morality" - I´d agree, but not all moral codes have to be legislated law. For example, if I help an ugly old woman to cross the street, most people would consider this action morally good, but there is no specific "written" law which says I have to behave like this.

I´m not convinced that "power=moral" works, at least not that absolutely. I´d say the Nazis changed the law easily, but the moral not as easily (and not completely), otherwise they could publish their actions openly. But they didn´t, there was indeed open propaganda and actions against Jews (for example), but they didn´t publish the "results" of Auschwitz to the German public. If the German society considered the Holocaust morally good, there was no reason to hide the details.

Nation is the basis of the system

GePap, maybe I missunderstand the usage of term "nation" in the English language - but the basic principles of the Nazi system beside the "Führerprinzip" where more the so-called "Deutsche Volksgemeinschaft" (simplified translated: the German people) together with "race" than the nation. Nation as such could also incorporate German Jews or other minorities, but the Nazi system excluded them.

/threadjack

[Imran Siddiqui]

So you're claiming that people are completely logical all of the time? Come on!

Societies are logical nearly all of the time. A collection of people with illogical acts will end up in a logical grouping.

Because logic == rationality, and a rational justification is objectively superior to an irrational justification.

WHY? Why is rationality more preferable to irrationality? This is a subjective preference. Reason itself is a man-made construct, and I don't see why we have to follow it. There have been societies in the past who have claimed reason is flawed and leads to a LACK of morality. I can't see those societies as being wrong.

Reasonableness itself is a subjective measure. Different people believe different things are reasonable. In law reasonableness means what is reasonable to an ordinary person, with the caveat that the reasonable person is different in different societies. Even if you do not agree with the underlying reasons for reasonablenss, doesn't mean that person isn't reasonable. It depends on how society has decided to call it.

Why? Because you're going to keep crying "Subjective, subjective!" until I fall asleep?

While you claim "Objective, Objective" until I fall asleep?

Yes, I'll continue to call it subjective, but I don't see why I have say 'reason' or 'logic' should be the basis of a moral system. There are plenty of moral systems that I wouldn't mind living in that don't care for logic or reason.

Yes, but "right" is not exactly the same as "moral".

Of course not. Especially when you are of the persuation that no morals are 'right' .

GePap, maybe I missunderstand the usage of term "nation" in the English language

According to International Relations defintion, the nation means a people that have similar culture (basically).

[Ben Kenobi]

However, it would be totally naive of me to say catagorically I'd NEVER support the Holocaust even if the Nazis won. How could anyone really say that without getting laughed at.

Imran, I would not have supported the holocaust if the evidence were presented before me that the Jews were slaughtered. This might be more difficult than you would think because the Nazis would either remove all evidence of the death camps if they won, or they would boast and assert that what they did was right.

If I found out, I would protest and oppose. Why is this naive?

[Imran Siddiqui]

If I found out, I would protest and oppose. Why is this naive?

Because you assume that you would be the same exact person if the world had changed in such a dramatic way (not to mention the assumtion that society would be the same).

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Loin - "Why"

I believe that killing someone is wrong because it is not something I would want happen to me. The Nazis believed that doing so was ok, which is why I dont agree with their standard of morals.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ok. I can agree that if Hitler wins, all bets are off. We might be taught a very different view of the second world war, or we might be still fighting today.

However, even if I were taught in school that the Nazis were right, it still does not mean that they were right to do what they did. What the plurality believes is not always right.

Otherwise, we have a tyranny of the majority, where whatever most believe should be followed. If most people believe that Arabs are evil, and are a burden to society such that they should be killed, this would suddenly become right. In the case of a polarised country just one person changing their mind could change the justification of the act.

We don't vote on ethics.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
WHY? Why is rationality more preferable to irrationality?

Oh, for pity's sake. To justify something means to give reasons for something. A reasonable reason is objectively superior to an unreasonable reason. It's how the terms are defined, fer crissakes. You can't deny such a basic tenet without rejecting language in general.

Reason itself is a man-made construct, and I don't see why we have to follow it.

Language is also a man-made construct, yet here you are using language. If you reject reason as meaningless, then you must also reject language as meaningless, since the two are inextricably linked. And, if you reject language as meaningless, then I'm left to wonder why you're here babbling meaningless gibberish.

There have been societies in the past who have claimed reason is flawed and leads to a LACK of morality. I can't see those societies as being wrong.

Why can't you? This isn't even a good "appeal to common practice" or "appeal to popularity" -- it's more like an "appeal to anomalies." If you share the beliefs of these societies, then go right ahead and offer a justification for said beliefs.

Reasonableness itself is a subjective measure. Different people believe different things are reasonable.

As I said before, logic is not as transient as you make it out to be.

Furthermore, if reason is completely subjective, then I'm left to wonder why you engage in debates at all, since your own opinions about anything are rendered completely meaningless by your belief that reason is worthless. Hell, even your opinion regarding the worthlessness of reason is rendered meaningless, since the belief negates itself.

Which leaves you defending the position that your own position is worthless (and I'm not about to dispute you on this one). Alternatively, you can try to justify the position that unreasonable/unjustified opinions regarding the rightness/wrongness of actions are acceptable while all other unreasonable/unjustified opinions are unacceptable -- the burden of proof rests firmly on your shoulders in this matter, since Occam's Razor would specify that moral opinions are not substantively different than any other kinds of opinion, barring justification to the contrary.

There are plenty of moral systems that I wouldn't mind living in that don't care for logic or reason.

It's entirely possible for something to be logical without its necessarily making a special effort to adhere to logic.

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
I believe that killing someone is wrong because it is not something I would want [to] happen to me.

How is the cause justifying the effect in that statement? I.e., how does your dislike of your being killed cause you to conclude that you ought not to kill others?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, for pity's sake. To justify something means to give reasons for something. A reasonable reason is objectively superior to an unreasonable reason. It's how the terms are defined, fer crissakes. You can't deny such a basic tenet without rejecting language in general.

I see you are getting somewhere now.

There is no reason (pun intended) that a reasonable justification should be better than an unreasonable justification. That is simply a societal norm in the present.

For many generations before that irrationality was favored (ie, religion).

if reason is completely subjective, then I'm left to wonder why you engage in debates at all, since your own opinions about anything are rendered completely meaningless by your belief that reason is worthless. Hell, even your opinion regarding the worthlessness of reason is rendered meaningless, since the belief negates itself.

We do a lot of things that are worthless as recreation. Debating is something we on this site do. It is no more meaningful than watching Jerry Springer on TV. Entertainment doesn't pretend to have 'meaning'.

And yes, my opinion about the subjectiveness of reason can also be considered totally subjective. That's the point.

It may not be totally worthless though. It might work to construct and control some societies. That would make it not worthless, but no more objective.

[Berzerker]

Furthermore, if reason is completely subjective, then I'm left to wonder why you engage in debates at all, since your own opinions about anything are rendered completely meaningless by your belief that reason is worthless. Hell, even your opinion regarding the worthlessness of reason is rendered meaningless, since the belief negates itself.

Which leaves you defending the position that your own position is worthless (and I'm not about to dispute you on this one).

[GePap]

Originally posted by BeBro

GePap, maybe I missunderstand the usage of term "nation" in the English language - but the basic principles of the Nazi system beside the "Führerprinzip" where more the so-called "Deutsche Volksgemeinschaft" (simplified translated: the German people) together with "race" than the nation. Nation as such could also incorporate German Jews or other minorities, but the Nazi system excluded them.

/threadjack

When I said nation, I meant as coherent ehtno-linguistic group. Germans all share the same language and a set of shared traditions. Since Christianity was seen as one of the fundamental bits of the culture of being German, then the Jews are simply outside period. Now, if a Jew left his traditions behind and integrated into german onesa, he should be able to 'join' the German nation. It si the Nazi addition of a biological component that makes the Jew an outsider with no way in.

As for relativity: here here for Loin! subjectivity can only go so far: make definitions subjective and the argument must come to an end since it will lead nowhere.

Similarly, if I were to say "Bob is immoral because I don't like him," then my claim is unreasonable simply because I've failed to understand the meaning of "morality" -- morality is a measure of goodness and badness in human action, not a measure of how likeable or unlikeable somebody is. Saying "Bob is immoral because I don't like him" is no different, in principle, than saying "Bob is poor because I don't like him" or "Bob is stupid because I don't like him" -- these claims are unreasonable because the person making the claims has failed to understand the definitions of "poor" and "stupid."

I must say this is not wholly what I meant by my previous statement. What you present is the most base case, but when speaking over moral codes, things are vastly more complex. After all, the question we are really arguing is if it is absolutely immoral to say, not "he is immoral because I dislike him" but "he is immoral because of an inherent quality of his being, regardless of any actions he may have ever taken"

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
There is no reason (pun intended) that a reasonable justification should be better than an unreasonable justification.

What joy it must be to arbitrarily redefine terms. What other terms besides "justification" and "reason" have you redefined here? Is "better" being used in the accepted definition of the term, or is it just another "completely subjective" word? How about "pun"? Or "there"? For all I know, you've just said something particularly witty about horse rectums. Unfortunately, I'll probably never understand the joke, since language is so completely meaningless.

We do a lot of things that are worthless as recreation. Debating is something we on this site do.

You're not debating -- a debate is a considered exchange of ideas and opinions. By rejecting rationality and language you've demonstrated that you've been "debating" in bad faith -- you haven't once considered anybody's ideas/opinions besides your own, since all opinions are equally meaningless.

Originally posted by Gepap
After all, the question we are really arguing is if it is absolutely immoral to say, not "he is immoral because I dislike him" but "he is immoral because of an inherent quality of his being, regardless of any actions he may have ever taken"

I didn't see that as being the issue -- the question in my mind was whether or not the principle of causality is a subjective measure of "reasonableness" or whether it was (as was my contention) grounded in logic/language and thus invariant (or at least "more-or-less invariant"). I can't think of any cases in which a quality inherent to somebody could justifiably affect my moral judgment of that person, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's impossible that this could ever be the case -- conceivably, there could exist some inherent quality that would influence my moral judgment of whoever possessed said quality without my necessarily violating causality. Do I think that it is unlikely that such a quality exists? Sure. Am I going to go way out on a limb and say that such a quality absolutely cannot exist? Nosirree.

[Berzerker]