Sinner or Saint: Which are you closer to?

[Crunchy Cat]

All reality is only seen through the lens of human interpretation. Yes, measuring the speed of an object may seem as if it is outside the realm of human interpretation, but it is not - because the observer is going to be human. Accordingly, there is no objectivity that can escape the limits of human interpretation. When we speak of objectivity, we are assuming this will be seen through human eyes.

If a tree falls in the forrest and nobody is around to witness it, it still falls and produces sound waves. If you walk naked into a roaring forrest fire, you will get burned. That is objective and no matter what your subjective opinion / concensus is, it will not change the fact.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Pedophiles do not get along good with children. You think the child likes the abuse?

http://www.springerlink.com/content/ux41q5lnp0642251/

In a natural relationship they seem to get together quite well and there is no interpretaiton of abuse. You don't like it and will label it 'wrong'; however, what you have failed to do is show how it is objectively wrong. Where does reality definitively show what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'? The answer is that it does not. Both concepts are human and societal tolerances to various behaviors and values. They are moving and ever-changing targets.

 

[John J. Bannan]

A subjective consensus can be wrong. However, that subjective consensus is also what agrees that a tree that falls in the forrest makes a sound and that you will get burned running naked through a burning forrest. There is no "objectiveness" beyond this consensus on interpreting stimuli. What you think of objective is really just extremely high subjective consensus. There is no way to prove anything without reference to human subjective observation and belief. I think therefore I am.

 

[John J. Bannan]

A pedophile and a child seem "to get together quite well"? You're saying the kid likes it. That's nonsense.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

A subjective consensus can be wrong.

And the objective is never wrong.

However, that subjective consensus is also what agrees that a tree that falls in the forrest makes a sound and that you will get burned running naked through a burning forrest.

There is, for example, subjective concensus out there that agrees that the tree doesn't make a noise.

There is no "objectiveness" beyond this consensus on interpreting stimuli. What you think of objective is really just extremely high subjective consensus. There is no way to prove anything without reference to human subjective observation and belief. I think therefore I am.

Objectiveness is the answer to "Does reality agree?". Reality is never incorrect... it is the absolute authority on truth. As a human, you are a product of reality... a literal cross section of it. You value certain actions and outcomes and those values change over time. You judge people against those changing values and label the result 'good' or 'bad'. Your 'Good' is someone elses 'Bad'. Soceities 'Bad' is a future societies 'Good'. There is no universal 'Good' or 'Bad'. Just people judging and labeling other people against their ever-changing values.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

A pedophile and a child seem "to get together quite well"? You're saying the kid likes it. That's nonsense.

As long as there is a single child in the world whom 'likes' it, you are objectively incorrect. The synopsis of the study I referenced shows far more than just that.

 

[lightgigantic]

this is apt posted by me in another thread "Stalin's beliefs are complicated and sometimes contradictory. Historians Vladislav Zubok and Constantine Pleshakov noted, he received his education at Theological Seminary at Tiflis (Tbilisi), where his mother sent him to become a priest, but he became a closet atheist. Zubok and Pleshakov further noted, "Many would later note, however, that his works were influenced by a distinctly Biblical style" and "his atheism remained rooted in some vague idea of a God of nature." more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_...igious_beliefs
remember atheists have no belief in god/gods. so what was stalin. probably a pagan/wicci.

I think its obvious
Stalin was a Tibetan buddhist

 

[Grantywanty]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/ux41q5lnp0642251/

In a natural relationship they seem to get together quite well and there is no interpretaiton of abuse. You don't like it and will label it 'wrong'; .

Wow, a defense of pedophilia.

Here's one contradiction.
You are basically saying he shouldn't judge the pedophilic act as bad. That's your unjustified morality. You have a sense of morals but it is on a meta level, still, by your system, unjustified and hallucinatory.

Crunchy cat's Ethical stance:
There is nothign objectively wrong with being a pedophile.
There is something objectively wrong with judging pedophiles as being wrong.

One activity you have chosen to try to stop.
Nice philosophy.

It's good that you are here to keep people from committing immoral statements from your meta ethical perspective.

If you knew someone who had been with a pedophile or you yourself had been ,and even if, at the time, you had thought it was good or OK and checked that box on the form they gave you to fill out, by now you would have probably realized some of the reasons you needed to think it was OK at the time and what an ass you are making of yourself here.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Not that I am surprised, but you (GrantyWanty) completely misunderstood what was presented and utterly missed the point. Allow me to recap. John J. Bannon objectively asserted that pedophiles and children do not get along. I provided a synopsis to a study that objectively shows that many do. What this means is that John J. Bannon's assertion (which in part he is basing his 'pedophilia is wrong' position) is objectively incorrect.

That exercises feeds into a larger point in that there is no, nada, zip, zilch, objective 'right' or 'wrong'. Only ever-changing subjective values. What is 'right' today is 'wrong' tomrrow. Religion often asserts there is a definitive absolute 'right' and 'wrong' and part of exposing the delusion is to show that this is not the case.

In case you are wondering how this works, let me show you.

John J. Bannon lives in a society that condemns pedophilia and seeks revenge upon any practicioners caught (both the adult and the child). John was raised to value sexual relations this way and he subjectivly considers the behavior 'wrong'.

GrantyWanty lives in a soceity that does not condemn pedophilia and treats its practicioners like those of any other sexual preference. GrantyWanty was raised to value sexual relations this way and he subjectively considers the behavior 'right'.

In both cases John and GrantyWanty's positions on pedophilia are neither objectively 'right' or objectively 'wrong'... because objective 'right' and 'wrong' do not exist. John and GrantyWanty's positions reflect their values on sexual orientation and human behavior.

 

[John J. Bannan]

How can you prove anything except through your own senses? Accordingly, everything has an element of subjectiveness to it. However, what we call "objective" is really just a high degree of certainty based on subjective interpretation. Of course, morals are subjective in the sense that they are based on human interpretation. However, morals can also be "objective" in the sense of a high degree of certainty that they are correct based on a consensus of subjective interpretation. And, indeed, what is "objective" today may not be tomorrow. Middle age man thought that objectively speaking the world was flat. Today, "objectively" speaking the world is round. Nevertheless, just because "objectivity" is sometimes subject to change, that does not mean it is always subject to change - as in the case of pedophilia.

 

[Oli]

How can you prove anything except through your own senses? Accordingly, everything has an element of subjectiveness to it. However, what we call "objective" is really just a high degree of certainty based on subjective interpretation. Of course, morals are subjective in the sense that they are based on human interpretation. However, morals can also be "objective" in the sense of a high degree of certainty that they are correct based on a consensus of subjective interpretation.

So consensus makes objectivity?

And, indeed, what is "objective" today may not be tomorrow. Middle age man thought that objectively speaking the world was flat.

Second time today: no.
The world was accepted as round from the Greeks (or even earlier), the myth that the world was believed to be flat during the dark ages up to Columbus is a particularly/peculiarly American myth.

Today, "objectively" speaking the world is round. Nevertheless, just because "objectivity" is sometimes subject to change, that does not mean it is always subject to change - as in the case of pedophilia.

There is a society where a chosen newly-nubile girl is encouraged to have sex with sequential multiple partners (in view of everyone) - immediately before she and her final partner are crushed and eaten.
Where's the "objectivity" in that?

 

[John J. Bannan]

Show me anything that is objectively true - and I'll show you a subjective person who says so.

 

[Oli]

Ho ho ho.
Because everyone has subjective opinions therefore you're correct.
But just because it's said by someone with opinions does not mean there are no objective truths.
Objective truths (the sun exists) are true whether spoken or not.

 

[John J. Bannan]

Sure, the sun exists. But, this is because your subjective senses tell you this is so.

 

[Oli]

Nope. It would exist if I were blind, deaf dumb or dead.

 

[John J. Bannan]

Prove the sun exists without reference to human senses.

 

[Oli]

Because it can be measured by things other than human senses, the sun's gravity field keeps the Earth in orbit...
Or are you moving on to collective solipsism?

 

[John J. Bannan]

Prove that the Earth is in orbit without reference to human senses.

 

[Oli]

Yes, I thought so...
So if there are no humans to observe it the Earth stops orbiting?

 

[John J. Bannan]

Well, if there were no humans to observe the Earth orbiting - how would you know? You only "know" because your senses tell you so. So long as truth must be filtered through human eyes, there will always be a subjective aspect however high the degree of certainty. Agreed?