Parent's Rights, where do you stand?

For those of you who haven't heard anything about it, there is a group trying to push a constitutional amendment to guarantee a parent's rights to raise their children as they see fit, including the right to spank kids, have more control over the type of education that the child receives, and a handful of other issues.
The Amendment would look something like this-
SECTION 1
The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

SECTION 2
Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

SECTION 3
No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.
Parentalrights.org

More or less it's a counter measure to the current treaty that the UN is trying to push, which can basically be outlined as follows-

* Definition of children as all persons less than 18 years of age, unless the legal age of majority in a country is lower.

* General principles, including the right to life, survival and development, the right to non-discrimination, respect for the views of children and to give consideration to a child's best interests, and the requirement to give primary consideration to the child's best interests in all matters affecting them.

* Civil rights and freedoms, including the right to a name and nationality, freedom of expression, thought and association, access to information and the right not to be subjected to torture.

* Family environment and alternative care, including the right to live with and have contact with both parents, to be reunited with parents if separated from them and to the provision of appropriate alternative care where necessary.

* Basic heath and welfare, including the rights of disabled children, the right to health and health care, social security, child care services and an adequate standard of living.

* Education, leisure and cultural activities, including the right to education and the rights to play, leisure and participation in cultural life and the arts.

* Special protection measures covering the rights of refugee children, those affected by armed conflicts, children in the juvenile justice system, children deprived of their liberty and children suffering economic, sexual or other forms of exploitation.
UNCRC

So my friends, which side of this issue are you on and why? Poll coming for easy tallying...

I like the amendment. I predict that this current trend of uninvolved pussy parenting is going to lead to problems in the future, and I think that the freedom to raise children as the parents see fit is very important. I was spanked and I turned out just fine, I think it is a parent's right to do so.

As a rule, I don't think much of parents' rights. They seem to relegate the child to the staus of property, and give the parent undue permission to make terrible decisions about its fate with little to no accountability. There's no reason, as far as I'm concerned, to say that the parent has any "right" to decide how to raise a child.

That said, we don't really have a better system, and there's probably not much the government can do to battle bad parenting -- I'm not sure spanking and what they have for breakfast are the major issues. But the claim that "The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right" is, to me, ridiculous, dangerous and sad.

That summary doesn't really say anything about spanking -- in fact, I don't see much of anything in the UN summary that's really all that revolutionary (what a surprise, coming from the UN and all). I don't really care to bother to read the actual UN document but I assume the summary is correct.

That said, putting that into the Constitution would be pretty dumb. One of the great things about the US Constitution is that it's short and concise, and doesn't bother itself with petty stuff like this. The last time we put moral "law" in the Constitution, it was proven to be a miserable idea (Prohibition). This really strikes the same chord as the amendment people (idiots) are calling for to ban homosexual marriage nationwide. Let states decide for themselves, that's why the Constitution was written so concisely to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

I think that the freedom to raise children as the parents see fit is very important. I was spanked and I turned out just fine,

---

Great anecdotal evidence you've come up with there. There have been plenty of kids who grew up with abusive parents who didn't turn out fine at all. It's not spanking, it's how much and how it's done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sponge

Great anecdotal evidence you've come up with there. There have been plenty of kids who grew up with abusive parents who didn't turn out fine at all. It's not spanking, it's how much and how it's done.

---

Well nobody is standing up for child abuse here. I think it's pretty normal for a child to come out of an abusive situation and not be fine. I think that what Mr. E is getting at is that spanking as a disciplinary measure generally does more good than harm for a child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

I like the amendment. I predict that this current trend of uninvolved pussy parenting is going to lead to problems in the future, and I think that the freedom to raise children as the parents see fit is very important. I was spanked and I turned out just fine, I think it is a parent's right to do so.

---

Regardless, you really think that this should be a constitutional matter, especially as a "states' rights" man yourself?

Though I think that parents should be able to raise their children the way they see fit (as long as it doesn't involve any egregious abuse, of course), I strongly feel that this sort of issue should be regulated at a state level. Moreover, any sort of federal regulation of this should not be in the constitution. I would oppose an amendment enshrining gay marriage for similar reasons.

And though I might be wrong, I don't remember any prominent cases in which parents have been arrested for merely spanking their children.

Quote:

---

More or less it's a counter measure to the current treaty that the UN is trying to push, which can basically be outlined as follows-

---

...and this only confirms my stance, as the constitution should especially not be used as a platform for activism. And it sounds like typical paranoia over UN conventions from the more radically conservative elements in the US.

And what exactly in the UN articles opposes a parent's perogative to raise his or her child as she or he sees fit? Isn't it taken as a given that a parent or guardian should have oversight and ultimate control over their children?

As quoted directly from the document itself (emphasis my own):

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article 2

2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article 5

States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.

---

So it sounds like the rights of the parents to raise their child as they see fit are well-protected in this document, does it not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djwolford

Well nobody is standing up for child abuse here. I think it's pretty normal for a child to come out of an abusive situation and not be fine. I think that what Mr. E is getting at is that spanking as a disciplinary measure generally does more good than harm for a child.

---

Again, though, where in the UN Convention on the Right of the Child does it say "though shalt not spank"? Are we making judgements on things we haven't read because "UN = BAAAAAD"?

It's an issue that the states aren't handling, for one, and it is an issue important enough that I think it should have established federal standards for another. That is why I am in favor of an amendment for it.

Gwahir, you hate rights so of course you aren't going to think that anything that has anything to do with rights is good. To say it is dangerous and sad is a little bit of a stretch though, I'd say. Parents create their spawn, and because they are solely responsible for its existence I believe that they do have a sort of ownership over it and a right to raise it as they choose, within safe reason and so long as it doesn't break any preexisting laws.

Children are tricky entities when it comes to rights. It couldn't hurt to have things be better defined.

I had to vote in favor of the UN treaty or whatever it is. I won't try to get too deep into it because I just read the OP and skimmed the replies, but I have to say I don't think that you should have the fundamental right to raise your child however you want. There are lots of people out there who have poor morals and would make terrible parents who are just pumping out babies. I don't necessarily think you should have to prove yourself a fit parent either, but it isn't a right by any means, having children is a privilege.

And as someone who was spanked as a child, I don't think it hurt me, but it also didn't do anything other disciplinary measures wouldn't have. I put spanking down to parenting style and personal choice because if you are doing it right, you aren't really hurting the child. Obviously there is a line between parenting and abuse, but I don't think spanking crosses it. However hitting your child in pretty much any other way does.

Had I voted another way though, I would have just voted that neither is important because as far as I can tell, the UN thing isn't even really directed at the United States, where most of those things are commonplace anyways. And the amendment to the constitution is just an over-reaction, much like people jumping up to arms every time someone in Washington even whispers the words "gun control". It seems like the UN thing isn't directed at us, and the amendment is just a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Besides, I don't think that anytime in the near future child services will come breaking down your door because you spanked your kid for hitting his sister.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

I like the amendment. I predict that this current trend of uninvolved pussy parenting is going to lead to problems in the future, and I think that the freedom to raise children as the parents see fit is very important. I was spanked and I turned out just fine, I think it is a parent's right to do so.

---

Well what makes you think kids who aren't spanked don't turn out fine? I'm sure there's plenty of anecdotal evidence which supports the idea that they do.

Taking the heavy handed approach is not the only way to discipline a child. One of the main issues about this is that if a parent has anger issues or even just had a particularly bad day then there's the chance it could cross that very fine line into child abuse. Not only that but an ammendment like this could possibly used to protect parents in cases of minor child abuse.

Just because something worked ok for you does not mean it will work for the world.

I'm not saying one way is better than the other, I'm just saying that parents should have the right to take either approach because spanking isn't going to hurt kids (no pun intended).

I also think that children must be viewed as a right, because if having children was a privilege there would be tighter restrictions on reproduction and child care would be more strictly monitored and regulated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

It's an issue that the states aren't handling, for one, and it is an issue important enough that I think it should have established federal standards for another. That is why I am in favor of an amendment for it.

---

States aren't handling this issue because it's a non-issue. Legislation on things like this is totally unnecessary when the issue isn't brought up to trial. No one is being prosecuted for spanking their child.

And again, you're a states' rights person. But is that only when the states' stances on the issues oppose your own?

Why should something as specific and as intimate as the way parents handle their children be handled at a federal level when such things as marriage and the death penalty are handled at a state level?

Also, do you find the UN convention objectionable? If so, why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

I also think that children must be viewed as a right, because if having children was a privilege there would be tighter restrictions on reproduction and child care would be more strictly monitored and regulated.

---

I understand this is a response to Shinysides, and not to me. Nonetheless...

And where is this "right" being threatened to the point that it must be specifically enumerated? There are plenty of rights that aren't so specifically stated, and often times those rights which are stated in the Bill of Rights and elsewhere in the Constitution can and are interpreted broadly enough to cover things like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinysides

I had to vote in favor of the UN treaty or whatever it is. I won't try to get too deep into it because I just read the OP and skimmed the replies, but I have to say I don't think that you should have the fundamental right to raise your child however you want. There are lots of people out there who have poor morals and would make terrible parents who are just pumping out babies. I don't necessarily think you should have to prove yourself a fit parent either, but it isn't a right by any means, having children is a privilege.

---

And how does one go about regulating such a "privilege"? Forced sterilization? Forced abortions? Otherwise performing procedures on a person that violates their bodily integrity?

Of course, I agree that children should be taken out of situations in which they are being abused, as they

It is a non-issue now, but it won't be a non-issue forever. There is nothing wrong with preemptively dealing with an issue. But no, I agree that states should handle the majority of issues. Issues that should be handled by the federal government are issues that effect everybody. Parenting regulation potentially effects everybody. Stuff like gay marriage, abortion, and whatever else should stay with the states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinysides

I had to vote in favor of the UN treaty or whatever it is. I won't try to get too deep into it because I just read the OP and skimmed the replies, but I have to say I don't think that you should have the fundamental right to raise your child however you want. There are lots of people out there who have poor morals and would make terrible parents who are just pumping out babies.

---

Be this as it may, how will a UN convention on child-raising rectify the problem? It's not going to improve shitty parents one bit. If people have poor morals and would make shitty parents, no amount of UN agreements (and corresponding domestic legislation) will change that, or cause those people to raise their kids well instead of poorly.

I'm not coming down on either side of this argument, just pointing out that voting in favor of the UN convention because some people are shitty parents doesn't make any sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Be this as it may, how will a UN convention on child-raising rectify the problem? It's not going to improve shitty parents one bit. If people have poor morals and would make shitty parents, no amount of UN agreements (and corresponding domestic legislation) will change that, or cause those people to raise their kids well instead of poorly.

I'm not coming down on either side of this argument, just pointing out that voting in favor of the UN convention because some people are shitty parents doesn't make any sense.

---

No, my vote isn't for the UN thing because some people are shitty parents, I voted for the UN convention because I think it may help protect children is other countries from some abuse. I just think it may promote better guidelines on child care in other countries. I was on the fence for a while choosing between voting the UN convention or voting neither, but I eventually came down on the UN side because of that thought.

Edit: And as far as the right/privilege discussion goes, I meant only that children should be taken out of abusive environments, not that people should have to prove their right to breed.

Also, morality is almost completely subjective. It can't be regulated in terms of passing it on to your spawn, because then we run into the issue of the government telling people what is right and what is wrong. Another reason to support the amendment would be to prevent government-imposed morality in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

It is a non-issue now, but it won't be a non-issue forever. There is nothing wrong with preemptively dealing with an issue. But no, I agree that states should handle the majority of issues. Issues that should be handled by the federal government are issues that effect everybody. Parenting regulation potentially effects everybody. Stuff like gay marriage, abortion, and whatever else should stay with the states.

---

As far as I'm aware, "stuff that affects everyone" vs. "stuff affects only some people" is not the standard by which we determine what is controlled on a federal level vs. what is controlled on a state level.

In addition, over legislation is never good, especially in a difficult to change document like the Constitution, since such action is prone to either being co-opted by people to legislate on other issues or can lead to unintended consequences.

And finally...

Quote:

---

SECTION 3
No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

---

...no amendment we have in the Constitution has such ridiculous language in it since it is not necessary. All it does is mark this as something written by a group of paranoid people.

Your second point is a fair one. I think if the amendment actually gets through to vote it would be better to pass it than not pass it purely from an implication standpoint, but it probably would be better to wait until the inevitable spanking lawsuit.

Also, I realize that "stuff that affects everyone" vs. "stuff affects only some people" is not the standard by which we determine what is controlled on a federal level vs. what is controlled on a state level, but in my opinion that is what it should be, which is why I don't disagree with this issue being handled federally instead of state-by-state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djwolford

For those of you who haven't heard anything about it, there is a group trying to push a constitutional amendment to guarantee a parent's rights to raise their children as they see fit, including the right to spank kids, have more control over the type of education that the child receives, and a handful of other issues.

---

My issue is this seems like a thinly veiled attempt to violate other parts of the constitution and bill of rights, such as separation of church and state. If you want you child to be educated in a manner other than known facts, then please send them to a private school, do not force the government schools to bend the curriculum to fit your specific needs.

Also, why does this need to be a constitutional amendment, as far as I can tell, the current laws and regulations allow for sufficient freedom for raising a child. Spanking your child has never been a crime, beating them has. There is a distinct difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Also, I realize that "stuff that affects everyone" vs. "stuff affects only some people" is not the standard by which we determine what is controlled on a federal level vs. what is controlled on a state level, but in my opinion that is what it should be, which is why I don't disagree with this issue being handled federally instead of state-by-state.

---

Okay, let's say that we do use this criterion to judge what should be treated at a federal level rather than a state level.

In this case, how does abortion affect less people than a "parents' rights" amendment? Don't they affect approximately the same population?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrTroy

My issue is this seems like a thinly veiled attempt to violate other parts of the constitution and bill of rights, such as separation of church and state. If you want you child to be educated in a manner other than known facts, then please send them to a private school, do not force the government schools to bend the curriculum to fit your specific needs.

Also, why does this need to be a constitutional amendment, as far as I can tell, the current laws and regulations allow for sufficient freedom for raising a child. Spanking your child has never been a crime, beating them has. There is a distinct difference.

---

I'm thinking (I could be mistaken on this one.) that there were a few cases where kids were taken out of private schools against the parent's will and forced to go to public school because it was in the best interests of the child. (I think that it actually was due to the curriculum at the private schools, although that obviously wasn't pointed out in the story that I was watching.) As for separation of church and state I hate to jump into this because it's a different topic, but that is not guaranteed by the constitution/bill of rights. The only thing we're guaranteed is that we can practice any religion we want to without government interference or bias towards any specific religion. I guess that's a matter of how you interpret the 1st amendment to the constitution.

Back on topic though, I don't see there being a need for a constitutional amendment for this either. The reason that it's being brought up is because the U.S. Constitution overrides foreign treaties, whereas state laws don't. I guess the UN treaty is seen as threatening some of our individual freedoms, and some politicians are trying to get that in place to cockblock the UN here.

To be quite honest I don't know very much about either side just yet, but the issue intrigued me and I wanted to see where some of you guys stand on it.

I don't want to derail this thread, but the 1st amendment states:

Quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

---

There shall be no law respecting an establishment of religion. This means that there is no official religion, and it means that religious things must be separated from government sponsorship. At the same time, the government can't prevent you from forming or attending any church, or practicing any religion or no religion at all on private property. Plain and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djwolford

Back on topic though, I don't see there being a need for a constitutional amendment for this either. The reason that it's being brought up is because the U.S. Constitution overrides foreign treaties, whereas state laws don't. I guess the UN treaty is seen as threatening some of our individual freedoms, and some politicians are trying to get that in place to cockblock the UN here.

---

Again, I don't get at all the impression that this UN convention violates any parental method or right that the vast majority of people in the US deems reasonable, including spanking.

Also, as I said earlier, a constitutional amendment should not be used as a stage for activism, and upstaging the UN in this manner is nothing more than activism. This is also why the flag burning amendment didn't pass and resulted in little more than a farcical display on the House floor.

Quote:

---

I'm thinking (I could be mistaken on this one.) that there were a few cases where kids were taken out of private schools against the parent's will and forced to go to public school because it was in the best interests of the child. (I think that it actually was due to the curriculum at the private schools, although that obviously wasn't pointed out in the story that I was watching.)

---

That seems hard to believe. Perhaps the "private schools" were not accredited institutions, and thus didn't fulfill the state's requirement for children to be in school up to a certain age?

Oh, I just remembered something about Amish folks in PA and their children fulfilling minimum education requirements.

I'll look into this later, but only if I both remember and feel like it.

OOOOH, what do you think of me now????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrTroy

There shall be no law respecting an establishment of religion. This means that there is no official religion, and it means that religious things must be separated from government sponsorship. At the same time, the government can't prevent you from forming or attending any church, or practicing any religion or no religion at all on private property. Plain and simple.

---

Or it could mean that all religions have equal access to a public facility or even public funds, with no prejudice expressed to any particular religion that could be interpreted as approbation by the state thereof.

I think the lack of terminology of something like "respecting any 1 religion greater than others" or something similar to mean ANY religion.

No law respecting an establishment of religion. Religion in general, not plural as in specific religions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrTroy

I think the lack of terminology of something like "respecting any 1 religion greater than others" or something similar to mean ANY religion.

No law respecting an establishment of religion. Religion in general, not plural as in specific religions.

---

It actually says the "establishment of religion." What does "establishment" mean here, anyway? Does it merely mean establishing preference for any particular religion, or does it mean facilitating any religion's practice.

The Framers were purposefully vague about certain things. And that's the end of that.

@sycld: Well, I would wager there are significantly less abortions than there are children born, so the populations are definitely not the same.

In practice, the prohibition on laws "respecting an establishment of religion" certainly does seem to mean laws that would favor one religion over another, rather than laws that provide benefit to religion in general, because (for instance) religious organizations are tax-exempt. Obviously that's a law "respecting an establishment of religion" if "establishment of religion" is taken to mean religion in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

@sycld: Well, I would wager there are significantly less abortions than there are children born, so the populations are definitely not the same.

---

Where does the line get drawn, though? In your view, how many people does a law have to potentially affect in order to be properly handled at the federal level rather than the state level? This seems fairly arbitrary as well; why do you think that federal government should handle laws that affect lots of people while the states should handle laws that affect fewer people? What's the rationale here? Why shouldn't federal laws be passed that would affect a comparatively small number of people scattered across the entire country?

For the record, there are ~1.3 million abortions each year in the US and ~4 million children born each year in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

@sycld: Well, I would wager there are significantly less abortions than there are children born, so the populations are definitely not the same.

---

I'm referring to women that get pregnant.

Well, I would wager that significantly more women choose to give birth than to have an abortion, so the populations are definitely not the same in spite of them being of the same demographic. Also, parenting isn't just the woman's concern like abortion is (I still think the male should have a say in cases of abortion, but that's not what we're talking about).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

(I still think the male should have a say in cases of abortion, but that's not what we're talking about)

---

Is there already a topic for this in AI? Because there should be. I would like to know other peoples views on that subject and why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Well, I would wager that significantly more women choose to give birth than to have an abortion, so the populations are definitely not the same in spite of them being of the same demographic.

---

But abortion laws determine whether ALL women who get pregnant have the option of having an abortion; so arguably the issue is one that affects all women (or at the very least all women who are, have been, or ever will pregnant), and it's misleading to say that it only affects 1.3 million women per year because that's how many women have an abortion per year. All the women who considered an abortion but decided against one are arguably affected by abortion law as well, because they wouldn't have even been able to realistically consider the option if there was a law banning abortion.

By your logic here, laws about how parents raise their children don't affect all parents, only those parents who choose to raise their children in a way that would be regulated or prohibited under the regulations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinysides

Is there already a topic for this in AI? Because there should be. I would like to know other peoples views on that subject and why.

---

There isn't at the moment, but feel free to start one. I'd be interested to learn other peoples' views as well.

The way I meant it to be conveyed was that laws about how parents raise their children affect all parents who choose to raise their children. I didn't word it well, but my point can still be interpreted I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

The way I meant it to be conveyed was that laws about how parents raise their children affect all parents who choose to raise their children. I didn't word it well, but my point can still be interpreted I think.

---

Okay, but at the same time, laws about whether a woman can terminate a pregnancy arguably affect all women who get pregnant.

Aside from all questions of which laws would affect more people, you still haven't answered my earlier question: WHY should laws have to affect a certain number of people in order to be appropriate at the federal level? What's the reasoning behind this criteria?

That's just an opinion, nothing more. It seems more logical to me to departmentalize smaller, more specialized issues to individual states due to regional nuance. However, in my opinion, parenting is a universal issue that is too important to be left up to regionalism. That's completely subjective, I realize, but what are opinions if not completely subjective?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

That's just an opinion, nothing more. It seems more logical to me to departmentalize smaller, more specialized issues to individual states due to regional nuance. However, in my opinion, parenting is a universal issue that is too important to be left up to regionalism. That's completely subjective, I realize, but what are opinions if not completely subjective?

---

Fair enough; but my own opinion is that it makes no sense to departmentalize issues to the states when those issues may be "smaller" (in terms of the number of people they affect) but are nevertheless nationwide, i.e. the people they affect are spread across the nation. For instance, abortion may be less common than parenthood, but it's still a nationwide issue. IMO, the issues that should be departmentalized to the states are those that are "smaller" or "more specialized" in terms of being localized vs. nationwide, or those that may vary substantially from state to state (e.g. agricultural policy). The issues of abortion and gay marriage don't vary substantially from state to state; no matter what state you're in, the same rights are at issue. The debate on these issues is over the same moral questions and the same legal rights in each state. To me, this makes more sense than saying that it's a state issue if 5% of the national population is affected, but a federal issue if 20% of the national population is affected.

I do think that this method objectively makes more sense than yours; basing the state vs. federal decision on the number of people affected by the issue seems utterly arbitrary to me, but the method I describe matches issues to level of government on the basis of how thoroughly or uniquely the level's jurisdiction encompasses the issue.

I remember getting my ass beat when I was a kid and everyone I meet tells me that I am a perfect gentleman and I was thoroughly taught manners. So to a certain extent, parents should be able to discipline their kids in a physical manner. Most of the people my age that weren't raised the same way are selfish pricks(most of the time anyways). My little brother was never given the same treatment and now he abuses drugs and alcohol. I understand that not everyone who is given this sorta discipline ends up being proper, but the worlds going to hell with all this lovey dovey oprah hug your children not smack them method.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick2.1

I remember getting my ass beat when I was a kid and everyone I meet tells me that I am a perfect gentleman and I was thoroughly taught manners. So to a certain extent, parents should be able to discipline their kids in a physical manner. Most of the people my age that weren't raised the same way are selfish pricks(most of the time anyways). My little brother was never given the same treatment and now he abuses drugs and alcohol. I understand that not everyone who is given this sorta discipline ends up being proper, but the worlds going to hell with all this lovey dovey oprah hug your children not smack them method.

---

With all due respect, I'm going to guess that you have absolutely no meaningful evidence that bad behavior in children is caused by this "lovey dovey oprah method", and are just jumping to baseless conclusions on instinct, anecdote, blind guesswork, mimicry of currently popular tropes, or some combination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

With all due respect, I'm going to guess that you have absolutely no meaningful evidence that bad behavior in children is caused by this "lovey dovey oprah method", and are just jumping to baseless conclusions on instinct, anecdote, blind guesswork, mimicry of currently popular tropes, or some combination.

---

Yeah cause every time I go to costco(or anywhere for that fact) and see horrible little children abusing their powers over their parents cause it isn't social acceptable to give them a love tap doesn't give me any hint. I've meet plenty of parents who keep telling me how they can't gain any control sometimes and when I mention spankings or whatever they get scared and talk about social services taking their children away if they did that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick2.1

Yeah cause every time I go to costco(or anywhere for that fact) and see horrible little children abusing their powers over their parents cause it isn't social acceptable to give them a love tap doesn't give me any hint. I've meet plenty of parents who keep telling me how they can't gain any control sometimes and when I mention spankings or whatever they get scared and talk about social services taking their children away if they did that.

---

Yep, anecdote, just as I suspected.

In order to draw meaningful conclusions about human behavior on a large scale, you need meaningful evidence, which is going to be produced by research in fields such as sociology, behavioral psychology, and so forth. In order to support the particular conclusion you are trying to advance here, you would need evidence establishing, or at least suggesting, a causal link between parents' willingness to slap/smack their children, and good behavior. It isn't enough to just say "When I'm in costco I see kids acting horrid and I conclude that it's because their parents won't smack them". That's baseless conjecture. You are presuming, without reason, that the poor behavior of the kids is a result of their parents' unwillingness to smack them, and could be rectified if that unwillingness went away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Yep, anecdote, just as I suspected.

In order to draw meaningful conclusions about human behavior on a large scale, you need meaningful evidence, which is going to be produced by research in fields such as sociology, behavioral psychology, and so forth. In order to support the particular conclusion you are trying to advance here, you would need evidence establishing, or at least suggesting, a causal link between parents' willingness to slap/smack their children, and good behavior. It isn't enough to just say "When I'm in costco I see kids acting horrid and I conclude that it's because their parents won't smack them". That's baseless conjecture. You are presuming, without reason, that the poor behavior of the kids is a result of their parents' unwillingness to smack them, and could be rectified if that unwillingness went away.

---

Not unwillingness, if you are unwilling to discipline your kids in anyway, then in my opinion you aren't strong enough to be a parent. Social acceptability is what I'm looking for. Some people don't think it's ok, but I don't think it is any of their business. I don't condone abuse at all, there is a fine line you can cross when trying to raise you kids with that method. If you want to raise your child with verbal rather than physical discipline, that is up to you, but I believe that it should be acceptable either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Well, I would wager that significantly more women choose to give birth than to have an abortion, so the populations are definitely not the same in spite of them being of the same demographic. Also, parenting isn't just the woman's concern like abortion is (I still think the male should have a say in cases of abortion, but that's not what we're talking about).

---

Yes, I really meant more as a couple to choose whether or not to abort the child.

Similarly, many more parents probably choose not to use corporal punishment or any parenting technique that would even in theory need protection from such an amendment, whether or not such protection is actually needed.

Likewise, many women and couples want the option to abort their pregnancies even if they never find themselves needing to recourse to it.

Pro-spankers, you can quit pointing out how spanking never screwed you up. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, is arguing that spanking will mess up a kid. The reason it's not allowed where it's not allowed is not because lovey-dovey-Oprah-types are judging you; the reason is that it's too easy to go from harmless spanking to physical abuse, and there's nowhere we can see to draw the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Also, morality is almost completely subjective.

---

Stop bloody well saying this as if it's a given. Moral relativism is its name, and it's garbage. Almost no contemporary ethical philosophers still subscribe to it.

Also, I don't write off the conversation because I don't believe in rights. Even if I did, I wouldn't believe in the right of someone to control the fate of another person the way parent right advocates do. I don't believe that a neighbour should get to decide what happens to me, and I don't believe my parents should either. I don't support the right for orthodox religious parents to raise orthodox religious children, for instance.

Basically, I believe that parents (for lack of a better substitute) should be able to raise their child in any way that does not abuse them, but that rules out many things that parent right advocates hold dear, like education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick2.1

Not unwillingness, if you are unwilling to discipline your kids in anyway, then in my opinion you aren't strong enough to be a parent. Social acceptability is what I'm looking for. Some people don't think it's ok, but I don't think it is any of their business. I don't condone abuse at all, there is a fine line you can cross when trying to raise you kids with that method. If you want to raise your child with verbal rather than physical discipline, that is up to you, but I believe that it should be acceptable either way.

---

Ah, okay. Sorry then. I thought you were saying that kids' bad behavior nowadays is specifically a result of parents who won't spank or hit their kids. I do agree that discipline in general obviously has a lot to do with it; there is certainly no shortage of evidence that kids' behavioral problems only get worse when their parents are unwilling to discipline them at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

Moral relativism is its name, and it's garbage. Almost no contemporary ethical philosophers still subscribe to it.

---

Wha? Really? I don't really keep up with what's in vogue among ethical philosophers... could you back this claim up somehow? It seems to me that the fundamental premise of moral relativism is pretty ironclad. I'm very surprised to hear that it's become passé. There is no God or universal metaphysical law out there saying "murder is wrong", it's just something that societies decide to agree on for obvious reasons. If you don't agree with moral relativism, where do you think that objective moral truth comes from? You must believe that there is some form of moral truth that exists outside of, and independent from, humans. What is it? It is a god or spiritual entity? Is it some invisible law woven into the fabric of the universe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Wha? Really? I don't really keep up with what's in vogue among ethical philosophers... could you back this claim up somehow? It seems to me that the fundamental premise of moral relativism is pretty ironclad. I'm very surprised to hear that it's become passé. There is no God or universal metaphysical law out there saying "murder is wrong", it's just something that societies decide to agree on. If you don't agree with moral relativism, where do you think that objective moral truth comes from? You must believe that there is some form of moral law that exists outside of, and independent from, humans. What is it? It is a god or spiritual entity? Is it some invisible truth woven into the fabric of the universe?

---

It's generally agreed upon (by me as well) that morality, well defined, is not up for interpretation. When you have a definition of "morality" as something like "the objective to serve the best interests of all beings with interests", which I think is a pretty good one, then all that is debatable is "what is best".

That means, in cases where something is best, there is no relativism to morality. Moral objectivism doesn't require something outside of humanity to "decide" or "dictate" what's right. That's the point; what is right isn't decided, it's discovered.

Moral relativism halts ethical debate entirely. It doesn't just stop it, it prevents it and cancels it out. If there is no Right, then there's just opinions, and everyone's opinions have equal weight, from you to your neighbour to the members of Al Qaeda. Moral relativism prevents me from meaningfully making a statement like "torturing babies is wrong", and hence I find it completely objectionable. No matter what any society says, torturing babies is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

It's generally agreed upon (by me as well) that morality, well defined, is not up for interpretation. When you have a definition of "morality" as something like "the objective to serve the best interests of all beings with interests", which I think is a pretty good one, then all that is debatable is "what is best".

That means, in cases where something is best, there is no relativism to morality. Moral objectivism doesn't require something outside of humanity to "decide" or "dictate" what's right. That's the point; what is right isn't decided, it's discovered.

---

It sounds to me like you're just saying that moral value judgments are clearly defined within any system of thought that assumes clearly defined moral value judgments. Sure, if you have a definition of "morality" such as that one, there's little room for debate within that definition. But why is that definition of morality any better or more valid than anyone elses' definition of morality? Where did it come from? Didn't someone just make it up because it sounded good to them (the very definition of subjectivity)?

In this system you describe, objective moral certitudes may be "discovered", but they are only being "discovered" within the context of a system of thought that defines what morality is in the first place. You aren't discovering moral truth in an absolute or universal sense, only discovering what is morally true under Jem's Personal Conception of Morality. That's fine as far as it goes--a given moral idea may indeed be objectively correct within your moral framework--but this doesn't mean it's objectively true in any larger sense. It's really just descriptive of your moral thought. "Apples are better than oranges" is objectively true within the framework of a system of thought that defines apples as being better than oranges, because it correctly and objectively describes what that system of thought says about apples and oranges; but it isn't objectively true outside that system of thought. Likewise, "torturing babies is wrong" may be objectively true within your own framework of moral thought, because that statement is objectively consistent with your definition of morality, but it's still not objectively true in any larger sense, because your framework of moral thought, or your definition of morality, is itself subjective. To claim otherwise, you must assert belief in some larger moral truth that exists outside us--again, whether it's God, or some universal metaphysical moral law, or whatever. Otherwise all moral definitions and all systems of moral thought are all just things that people dreamed up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

Moral relativism halts ethical debate entirely. It doesn't just stop it, it prevents it and cancels it out. If there is no Right, then there's just opinions, and everyone's opinions have equal weight, from you to your neighbour to the members of Al Qaeda. Moral relativism prevents me from meaningfully making a statement like "torturing babies is wrong", and hence I find it completely objectionable. No matter what any society says, torturing babies is wrong.

---

This sounds like an appeal to consequences to me. I want you to explain WHY torturing babies is objectively wrong. Not by arbitrarily constructing a system of moral thought that says torturing babies is wrong and then saying that "torturing babies is wrong" is an objectively correct moral statement with that system of moral thought, but by actually explaining why any system of moral thought that condemns baby-torture is objectively more valid than a system of moral thought that doesn't. With all due respect, I suspect that at the bottom of it all, your aversion to baby-torture is based entirely on an instinctive or emotional or visceral revulsion towards the idea of torturing babies, which is fine and dandy (I feel the same revulsion towards the idea; it means we aren't sociopaths), but also definitely subjective.

I don't really have anything to add, but since gwahir was originally talking to me when this off-shoot of the discussion started I just want to say that I agree entirely with Syme on this part, except I wouldn't have worded it as well because I don't go out of my way to be that thorough on here.

Yes, this ties in with gwahir's "Rights Theory" thread in which I took on Syme's stance of morality is subjective to the culture and framework of which you were raised. There is no such thing as

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

It's generally agreed upon (by me as well) that morality, well defined, is not up for interpretation.

---

that is not up for interpretation. Yes, to us in Canada, the US, the UK or Australia who have vaguely similar cultures and laws think something like raping of a woman is non-negotiable immoral, but in some cultures that is completely moral.

Like I said in the other thread, we would view stoning a woman to death for having premarital sex to be terribly out of our moral range, but at one time the majority of people agreed that it was the perfectly right thing to do. All morality is completely subjective. I would bet in 3000 years, they may view some of the things we do now as outrageously immoral by their standards, depending if it is a ultra-conservative fascist but blissful utopia or a completely liberal society. Think about abortions, think about the death penalty, think about putting criminals in prison... or the fact that we even have criminals, who's to say that 10,000 years from now future humans (if we still exist) won't view our views on morality horrifically savage?

I don't agree with the idea that the parent knows best. This simply is not true. It is however, a delicate issue. You cannot have the state playing an active role in raising children, that is the parents responsibility, however I don't think parents should be given free reign to do whatever they want with their kids. The phrase "the road to hell is pathed with good intentions" springs to mind, some people do terrible things to their kids, even though they think it is for the best and I do feel that it is important for the state to try and draw a line with regards to what is acceptable and what isn't.

For instance, I don't think the parent should have the right to determine what kind of education their child should have, and what content it should have. Most parents simply aren't qualified to be able to make a good judgement on this. I think this has the potential to do more harm than good and in this case, the parent doesn't know best, there are however others who do, like experienced and qualified teachers, politicians and academics who tend to rely more on research and evidence to support what the child should be taught, as opposted to "parental instinct" and other equally useless things (with regards to the subject).

As for "spanking" as most of you call it, I do think parents should be able to give their kids a slap when they misbehave. However there needs to be a limit, a line certainly needs to be drawn. Just as many people here say how they got spanked and it never screwed them up, I know a lot of kids who got beaten half to death on a regular basis by their parents and they are very, very screwed up, the very fact that they never killed themselves speaks highly of their emotional strength. However, how do you draw a line?

I think it would be better to say "please don't hit your kids" and force parents to find other, maybe more stressful (on them) methods to punish their kids as opposed to creating an environment where parents can commit GBH on their kids and it is considered to be "ok", it's their kid after all. The issue does get me fired up, too many of my childhood friends have had their lives literally ruined because of their parents and what used to happen to them. I remember one of my pals had a slumber party for his birthday. I took me PS up so we could play, but his dad had trouble tuning it in, so when my pal tried to help out, his dad snarled at him before head butting him across the room. Another pal, he made the mistake of dirtying the expensive shoes his mother got him and was then subsequently beaten across the head with a baseball bat. But hey, gotta give parents freedom to discipline their kids the way they want, because that is what is important, parents getting their way, regardless of the effect it will have on their property. These 2 kids I mentioned, 1 is just out of jail, he will be back, and none of them will ever have a job, for some reason they get really violent when people tell them what to do, can't think how they got that way :p

Sorry for that, it wasn't needed, my point is though, that it is better to just say "don't hit your kids" and reduce the risk and the acceptability of blatent assault, then to allow it and make it easier for parents to do it and get away with it. Saying that parents need the freedom to discipline however they see fit is frankly disturbing. Allowing them to do it their way isn't important, the childs well being is much more important and there are other ways to do it.

Parents wanting the best, and parents doing the best are not the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

It sounds to me like you're just saying that moral value judgments are clearly defined within any system of thought that assumes clearly defined moral value judgments. Sure, if you have a definition of "morality" such as that one, there's little room for debate within that definition. But why is that definition of morality any better or more valid than anyone elses' definition of morality? Where did it come from? Didn't someone just make it up because it sounded good to them (the very definition of subjectivity)?

---

Well, once the concept of morality is thought up, you've got to define it so that it makes sense. You can have a definition of morality as "that which fills the pockets of the rich with more money", which makes sense, but it doesn't make sense as a definition for morality, because nobody thinks of making the rich richer as moral. The concept of morality is about making the world a better place for the creatures capable of having interests -- or at least it is now that we've grown past (hopefully, philosophically speaking) religious ideals.

There are a few definitions of morality, but they all concern how we should behave at their most basic levels. (Except value ethics, which I don't really understand.) Come up with the should that makes the most sense, and it's something like we should behave according to the interests of all creatures capable of interests (I REALLY need a less clunky term there, so I'm going to go with "beings"; I don't know if that's correct but it's what I'm going with). Why? Because it's in all beings' interests! Why is that moral? Because what else could "moral" be? What else makes sense? If morality is about the best possible world, what possible world is better than a world that is good for every being's interests?

Morality is a concept made up by someone. But it's a concept that really only makes sense one way, and that way is not relative.

I keep coming up with almost-metaphors, but none is apt.

I'm arguing that only one definition of morality is coherent, and if we follow it, it leads to very certain, definite places. However, it's very subtle, and often convoluted, so those places are sometimes hard to find, and they'll sometimes go against conventional wisdom and/or our intuitions... much like science. You can call plenty of different things science, but only one conception of what science is really actually makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

This sounds like an appeal to consequences to me.

---

It was, because I got incredibly lazy, and you're much, much better at this than I am.

And I wanted to make my point to people like Mr Troy, but I can't, because he's repeating the same things at me.

Jesus, Mr Troy, I get that some cultures find certain things to be moral, but what I'm saying is that that conception of morality doesn't make sense; it is flawed, incoherent, or simply meaningless. No matter what orthodox Muslims/Jews/whoevers think about the way they treat their women, it is immoral.

So pretty much they have taken the average parental role model and turned it into an amendment? I see this as a good thing general, but some conflicting issues. For example, a few years back a huge story (at least locally) was of a vegan family not giving their children enough nutrition and they were hospitalized. Now the parent has a right to raise the kid as they see fit, but now the kid is in apparent danger.

Who would this amendment give the most leverage too? The parents or the state?

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?

Syme, are you an obectivist, or a libertarian?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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).

Well, since this thread has completely gone off topic and is now discussing a much broader and hazier issue (as internet threads are wont to do... err, that might be ascribing a "will" to a thread, but whatever...)

...I'm not going to try to get it back on topic and will go along with the current discussion.

I don't see how anyone can argue that morality is purely subjective. I would think it should be quite clear that there are some propensities to certain types of social behaviors that could be called moral behaviors, though just as anything else their expression is regulated by culture.

I think strong evidence for this can be seen in our mammalian cousins, especially those that function in social groups. Their is obviously some social code that governs their behavior which may be considered sort of proto-morality. If their expressions of social norms and of principles that govern their social interactions are not cultural (at least not purely), then humans should probably be no different.

Going along with this, a somewhat old model of the evolution of human social behavior is gaining popularity again amongst evolutionary anthropologists. I can't quite remember the name it goes by, but it's thought that groups of humans were competing with each other for resources, and those groups with individuals were disposed to cooperative social behavior won out against those groups which were not. In addition, these cooperative groups tended to reject and kick out individuals that did not have a disposition to cooperation, which caused the favoring of genes that encouraged cooperative behavior to be passed on.

Thus, this model could explain why humans seem to be predisposed to certain basic of moral behaviors, such as simply not killing every person they lay eyes on for fun. Again, however, there is merely an average tendency for this behavior over an entire population, and culture can greatly alter behavior. Just as with most other human behavioral characteristics, there is a complex interaction between genes, culture and environment that ultimately determines expression; it is not simply "nature" or "nurture."

Okay, gwahir, regarding your second-most-recent post ITT:

It seems to me that what you are doing is taking your own personal--and subjective--definition of morality, and trying to pass it off as objective because "it makes sense" (to you) while other definitions of morality "don't make sense" (to you). Do you not see that this is subjective reasoning? Maybe there ARE people who think that "that which fills the pockets of the rich" is a sensible definition of morality; just because that doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's objectively invalid. More to the point, even if there's no-one who really believes that enrichment of the rich is moral, there definitely ARE people who believe in definitions of morality that differ sharply from your own. There are people who believe that the concept of morality is not about making the world a better place for the creatures that have interests, but about doing whatever is pleasing to their god or gods. Or about anything else other than making the world a better place for creatures with interests. Maybe that doesn't make sense to you, but they might just as easily say that your morality doesn't make sense to them. Who is right? Why is what makes sense to you more valid to someone else? Why is what seems coherent to you more valid than what seems coherent to someone else? You are an intelligent person, you should be able to understand that you can't claim a concept to be objectively true just because it makes sense to you, because "making sense" is itself subjective and not absolute.

Sycld: I definitely agree that there are certain social behaviors that seem to be present in all human populations, and even in other species (certainly other primates). I'd also agree that the explanation for these common behaviors is almost certainly evolutionary, and that the morality systems developed by all human cultures reflect, to some degree and in varying ways, these common behaviors. But I would be hesitant to describe these behaviors as having any moral dimension, or to say that they call into question the subjectivity of morality. These behaviors are essentially survival instincts. Morality deals in abstract and metaphysical concepts (good and evil, right and wrong, etc.) and to me, the question of whether morality is subjective or objective is about whether these concepts exist or are defined in some absolute or universal sense, outside the minds of human beings. To me, the fact that we tend to construct our definitions of good/evil and right/wrong in a way that (sometimes, to some degree) reflects our survival instincts doesn't have anything to do with this question. It's a commonality, but, to my mind, biologically driven commonality isn't at all the same thing as objective, absolute, or universal moral truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

Jesus, Mr Troy, I get that some cultures find certain things to be moral, but what I'm saying is that that conception of morality doesn't make sense; it is flawed, incoherent, or simply meaningless. No matter what orthodox Muslims/Jews/whoevers think about the way they treat their women, it is immoral.

---

There you go again, with the italicized "It Is Immoral". Why are YOU the person who decides what IS and IS NOT moral? You can not seem to wrap your head around what subjective means. Just because you say that X cultures values and morals are meaningless and flawed, doesn't make it so. The only reason you believe so is because you were raised with what our cultures consider moral. You have tunnel vision.

If you were born and raised as a Muslim in the middle east, you would be quite certain that someone who holds the beliefs and moral standards of a MrTroy, Syme, Sycld, or Gwahir would be quite immoral, and you would be CERTAIN of it. You seem to have trouble separating your argument from your personal beliefs, much like religious zealots can't separate their religious beliefs when talking about what should be taught in school or the laws of the country. I can hold my own set of personal moral beliefs, which believe it or not align quite a bit with yours, but I still recognize that our version of morality is NO MORE SUPERIOR than any other standard. We feel ours is standard and superior because it is OUR code of morality, to us OUR views on morality subjects make the best sense, and they are crazy. Just as the Taliban members are just as certain that their code of morals should be the standard. Just because YOU say that your view of morality is the right one, and these others are flawed, doesn't make it so.

You are using flawed circular logic, "My moral views are right, Why? Because the others are flawed and meaningless, Why? Because my moral views are right, Why? Because they make more sense, Why? Because their moral code justifies bad treatment of women, which is immoral, Why? Because it is"

Now, I am not trying to put words in your mouth, it has quotation marks around it because it separates it as my example, but that is the jist of your argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrTroy

There you go again, with the italicized "It Is Immoral". Why are YOU the person who decides what IS and IS NOT moral? You can not seem to wrap your head around what subjective means. Just because you say that X cultures values and morals are meaningless and flawed, doesn't make it so. The only reason you believe so is because you were raised with what our cultures consider moral. You have tunnel vision.

If you were born and raised as a Muslim in the middle east, you would be quite certain that someone who holds the beliefs and moral standards of a MrTroy, Syme, Sycld, or Gwahir would be quite immoral, and you would be CERTAIN of it. You seem to have trouble separating your argument from your personal beliefs, much like religious zealots can't separate their religious beliefs when talking about what should be taught in school or the laws of the country. I can hold my own set of personal moral beliefs, which believe it or not align quite a bit with yours, but I still recognize that our version of morality is NO MORE SUPERIOR than any other standard. We feel ours is standard and superior because it is OUR code of morality, to us OUR views on morality subjects make the best sense, and they are crazy. Just as the Taliban members are just as certain that their code of morals should be the standard. Just because YOU say that your view of morality is the right one, and these others are flawed, doesn't make it so.

You are using flawed circular logic, "My moral views are right, Why? Because the others are flawed and meaningless, Why? Because my moral views are right, Why? Because they make more sense, Why? Because their moral code justifies bad treatment of women, which is immoral, Why? Because it is"

Now, I am not trying to put words in your mouth, it has quotation marks around it because it separates it as my example, but that is the jist of your argument.

---

I am with Gwahir on this one. Rape is always wrong. Murdering your daughter because she wants to spend time with someone you dissaprove of is wrong. Why can I say this? It is hit you in the face obvious. I do not see my morals as being superior just because they are mine. There are a lot of moral shades of gray, however there are some pretty obvious black and white zones. Rape isn't wrong because I was raised to think it, it is wrong because it is one of the most degrading things you can do to another human and something you wouldn't wish done to you.

And if you get raped, I imagine most people would like the support of their families, but depending on where you live, this can be impossible because some cultures are so damned sexist, it is a womans fault if she gets raped and women need to cover their entire bodies in black cloth so it doesn't tempt men, this is all backwards and wrong. MY moral belief that these are wrong IS superior, for these values induce, prelong and aggrevate human suffering and have been shown in the west to be a terrible way to treat women. They used to treat women like this in the west, then they started to say "hold on, this isn't right" and someone said "actually, you are right", because women are seen as human beings in the west (or at least alot more so than the middle east) their opinions carry much more weight, so when they say that being raped and then being told its your fault and abandoned by your family isn't a nice thing to happen, we don't say "shut up, woman", we are more inclined to listen. Our values have evolved and progressed.

That isn't to say our all of our values are better than theirs, but when it comes to rape and the treatment of women, ours are much better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

I am with Gwahir on this one. Rape is always wrong. Murdering your daughter because she wants to spend time with someone you dissaprove of is wrong. Why can I say this? It is hit you in the face obvious. I do not see my morals as being superior just because they are mine. There are a lot of moral shades of gray, however there are some pretty obvious black and white zones.

---

Just because it's "hit-you-in-the-face obvious" to you doesn't make it an objective moral truth. The reason it seems so obvious to you is that you have thoroughly socialized to believe it. The black and white zones that seem obvious to you seem that way because they are what your culture has programmed you, since birth, to perceive as obvious black and white zones.

Honestly, it's amazing to me how people can claim that certain moral ideas aren't subjective, and then without even blinking, support their claim with a justification like as "it's obvious", which any reasonable person should be able to see is flagrantly subjective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

Rape isn't wrong because I was raised to think it, it is wrong because it is one of the most degrading things you can do to another human and something you wouldn't wish done to you.

---

So how does that make it objectively wrong? What universal moral law says it's wrong? Where is the universal moral law saying that if something is degrading or if you wouldn't want something done to you, that thing is therefore wrong? You basically said "Rape isn't wrong because I was raised to think it's wrong, it's wrong because it's degrading and I've been raised to think that degrading things are wrong". It still comes back to how you've been socialized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

MY moral belief that these are wrong IS superior, for these values induce, prelong and aggrevate human suffering and have been shown in the west to be a terrible way to treat women.

---

So where are you getting this objectively true moral law saying that things which induce/prolong/aggravate human suffering are wrong? Do you not see that this criteria for immorality is not objectively more correct than anyone else's criteria? You're saying that such-and-such is objectively wrong because it causes human suffering, but the very idea that immorality inheres in causing human suffering is subjective. Just because you dreamed it up and it "sounds right to you" does NOT make it objectively correct. Some people would disagree that the causing of human suffering is that criteria by which morality should be judged; what makes your opinion on this matter more valid than theirs? What is the universal moral law that your views align with and theirs don't?

Syme the question I asked you about your personal political philosophy was basically keyed into to trying to identify if you have a personal moral system that supports your political views.

I read your argument about this point, but I have to strongly disagree that politics is fundamentally disconnected from morality. This can only be true if you also assume that your (and everyones) personal moral system is completely arbitrary, which I find difficult to believe you do (although of course you may surpirise me ). Which would mean that all your personal views on Rights are actually based purely on your personal prejudices and education and have no real logical foundation.

My point being, that if you have a moral system, then either it is a) completely arbitrary (and thus, worthless), OR b) you must have (or believe you have) some reason for thinking that your moral system is founded somewhere in reality and the real world.

If the answer is b), then your views on the validity of moral relativism and your actual personal moral system are logically inconsistent.

Just because something is arbitrary doesn't make it worthless. Also, morality is a uniquely personal and logical decision, meaning that by definition it can never be arbitrary.

Syme is completely right on this, and I have no idea why people continue to argue with him. Nothing is inherently right and nothing is inherently wrong. Everything falls into our moral compass where it does solely because we have decided it does, not because it deserves to. There is no objective morality, partially because if there was then it would be a universally accepted, and there isn't a single moral decision that is, and partially because morality is an abstract concept. It is like trying to argue time, you can't because it is a purely human concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrShrike

Syme the question I asked you about your personal political philosophy was basically keyed into to trying to identify if you have a personal moral system that supports your political views.

I read your argument about this point, but I have to strongly disagree that politics is fundamentally disconnected from morality.

---

Whoa there. I definitely never said that politics is "fundamentally disconnected" from morality. You are putting words into my mouth. In fact, if you read back over the thread you will find that I said this: "Not that moral views don't inform political views (obviously they do)". Of course morality is connected to politics. People form political ideas on the basis of their moral ideas, that's pretty much beyond debate. What I was saying is that I don't think that an objective view of morality is necessarily associated with one sort of political orientation while a subjective view of morality is associated with another; I'm saying that one's opinions on the objectivity/subjectivity of morality aren't necessarily connected to political orientation. That's very different from saying that morality and politics are "fundamentally disconnected".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrShrike

This can only be true if you also assume that your (and everyones) personal moral system is completely arbitrary, which I find difficult to believe you do (although of course you may surpirise me ). Which would mean that all your personal views on Rights are actually based purely on your personal prejudices and education and have no real logical foundation.

---

Yes, I believe that all moral beliefs are arbitrary insofar as there is no universal or absolute moral truth that they can be checked against. And yes, this includes my own moral beliefs, and the political beliefs that spring from them. My moral and political views are arbitrary, and no more or less objectively valid than anyone else's, in that there is no universal moral yardstick that we can hold those views up to and say "Syme's views match the universal moral yardstick more closely than MrShrike's views, therefore Syme's views are more correct". Yes, all my personal views on politics, morality, and everything else are based purely on my prejudices, experiences, education, upbringing, and so forth. And so are yours, and everyone else's. This is exactly what I meant when I talked about socialization earlier in the thread. In fact, again, if you read back in the thread, you will find that I have already admitted what you are trying to get me to say here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrShrike

My point being, that if you have a moral system, then either it is a) completely arbitrary (and thus, worthless), OR b) you must have (or believe you have) some reason for thinking that your moral system is founded somewhere in reality and the real world.

---

"Worthless"? What is "worth" in this context? What makes a moral view (or political view) worthy or worthless? Why do you think that moral or political views are "worthless" if they don't reflect an objective moral truth? If moral views must reflect objective moral truth in order to have worth, then what are your moral views, and what objective moral truth do they reflect? How are they founded in reality? Please conclusively demonstrate the existence of this objective moral truth and this foundation in reality, if you believe in them.

I agree with Mr. E, arbitrary does not necessarily mean worthless. I agree that my moral system is arbitrary; everyone else's moral system is arbitrary too. Your moral system is arbitrary, no matter how reluctant you are to admit it. Gwahir's moral system is arbitrary, no matter how reluctant he is to admit it. That doesn't make any of our moral systems necessarily worthless, or necessarily worthy for that matter. I think that my moral system is exactly as worthwhile, or worthless, as anyone else's moral system--your system, Gwahir's system, anybody's. Morality systems are ideas, they are socially constructed, they don't have concrete worth. A morality system is as worthy or worthless as any other human idea, any other socially constructed concept. Worth itself is a socially constructed concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrShrike

If the answer is b), then your views on the validity of moral relativism and your actual personal moral system are logically inconsistent.

---

I assure you that my ideas about morality are consistent, if they are nothing else.


EDIT: I don't believe in objective moral truth for the same reason that I don't believe in God: There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in such a thing, no matter how strongly we might wish there was. I'm an atheist because there's no proof of God's existence and I think that reasonable people don't believe in things without reason; and I'm a moral relativist because there's no proof of objective moral truth's existence and I think that reasonable people don't believe in things without reason. Don't get me wrong, I would absolutely LOVE for there to be some sort of objective moral truth that says, for instance, Rape Is Wrong. That would make things a lot easier. I really do wish that I could say that my view of rape (i.e., that it's wrong) is objectively correct, while the view of someone who doesn't believe that rape is wrong is objectively incorrect. But as far as I can tell, there is no such objective moral truth in the universe. And no matter how much I might want to, I can't bring myself to believe in something when I know that it's baseless and when I know that it's a fiction. It's self-delusion, it's not in my nature... again, that's why I'm an atheist too. It still baffles me that people who apply this reasoning to God, and are thus atheists (aren't you an atheist, gwahir?), will nevertheless steadfastly cling to belief in objective morality and refuse to apply the same reasoning to the idea of moral truth. None of this means I don't have moral ideas of my own; I do have my own ideas about morality, and I hold them dear. It just means that I don't try to pretend, to tell myself and others, that my moral ideas reflect or align with any objective, absolute, or universal moral truth--because there's no such thing.

And one more word on the topic of whether this recognition makes moral ideas "worthless"; as I already said, the very idea of "worth" is socially constructed and therefore subjective and arbitrary in it's own right. What's worthwhile or worthless to me may not be the same as what's worthwhile or worthless to you, and neither one of our ideas about worth/worthlessness are more valid than the others. But to me, my moral views are not worthless; they definitely have worth to me, because they are what I use to guide myself through life, to make decisions I can live with and respect myself for, and to evaluate the people around me and decide whether they're deserving of my respect or my friendship. That makes them worthwhile to me, no matter what you (or anyone else) thinks of the fact that I don't base them on some alleged objective moral truth.