Thread: Parent's Rights, where do you stand?

Originally Posted by MrShrike

Syme, are you an obectivist, or a libertarian?

Objectivist--hell no (assuming, because this is the internet, that you mean Ayn Rand's objectivism; if you mean the other, earlier, philosophical objectivism, I'm not so sure). Libertarian--not really. I have a "libertarian", i.e. ultra-permissive or "classically liberal", outlook on some issues (abortion and reproductive rights, sexual issues, gun rights, drug legalization, freedom of speech and religion, etc.), but I wouldn't describe myself as a libertarian in general, because there are many other issues on which I have views that favor a strong role for the state, and would make "real" libertarians cringe. If you wanted to place me on a two-axis political spectrum like the Political Compass, I'd be pretty far towards the libertarian end of the social axis, but pretty near the middle of the left-right economic axis.

FWIW, I see the issue at hand (whether morality is objective or subjective) as unrelated to politics. Not that moral views don't inform political views (obviously they do), but I don't think that whether a person views morality as objective or subjective necessarily has anything to do with how they are going to view various political issues.

Originally Posted by gwahir

Syme, I'm curious.

If you think morality is relative, why do you have moral discussion? What do you hope to achieve, and how can you be outraged at any moral offense of someone else?

Just because I think morality is relative doesn't mean I don't have moral views of my own; I definitely do. It just means that I recognize that I have those views because I was socialized to have them and/or because I cultivated them myself, not because I have discovered some universal moral truth or law that the people who disagree with me haven't discovered. I recognize that the moral views of everyone else in the world were arrived at in the same way. All it means is that in a moral discussion, I have to try to actually convince someone that my view of morality makes more sense or works better than theirs (and hopefully thereby convert them!); I can't fall back on the crutch of claiming that my moral views are necessarily more correct because they more closely align with some universal moral truth, while my opponent's views are less correct, or more immoral, because they don't align with that truth. I can't say, "Morality means X, that's beyond debate, and my views are moral within that definition while yours aren't." Making that argument is usually not going to get you anywhere in a moral discussion anyhow. The actual reason that I have moral discussion is simply that I find it engaging and interesting to do so.

As for how I can become enraged or offended at behavior that doesn't square with my own moral views, it's simple: Because I'm human. Even though I recognize, on an intellectual level, that my moral views aren't objectively more valid than anyone else's, they are still deeply-held beliefs, and on an emotional level I can't help but be angry or upset when I see something that clashes with them. I'd be an emotionless robot otherwise. Socialization is a powerful thing.

I'll try to respond to your other post, the longer one, later in the day when I have a bit more free time (posting from work, don't tell my boss).