Thoughts on Feminists

[Renton]

Taking this as the black and white truth for the sake of the argument, do you believe "the economy" is always more important than moral considerations? Just after clarification because when this point comes up again you've been giving examples of 'moral decisions' that don't turn out to have the perceived moral benefits, rather than saying "yes but there's less economic inefficiency" or whatever. No point in me arguing against a viewpoint if you don't hold it etc.

Morals are not absolute. They belong to individuals, and my morality is different from Steve's, Ian's, or Becky's morality. Some people think it is immoral for people in Indonesia to work for 50 cents an hour making products to be sold to Americans at Wal-mart. The clever observer however understands that those people employed for 50 cents an hour might be sleeping on the sidewalk if it weren't for the burgeoning export economy of Indonesia that enables them to have that 50 cent per hour job.

The only morality that should be legislated are the basic stuff like no murdering or stealing from or enslaving people. When governments get into specifics like social justice for wage-oppressed demographics, I just don't think much good can come of it.

[surviva316]

Morals are not absolute. They belong to individuals, and my morality is different from Steve's, Ian's, or Becky's morality. Some people think it is immoral for people in Indonesia to work for 50 cents an hour making products to be sold to Americans at Wal-mart. The clever observer however understands that those people employed for 50 cents an hour might be sleeping on the sidewalk if it weren't for the burgeoning export economy of Indonesia that enables them to have that 50 cent per hour job.

This isn't a particularly good argument for moral relativism. This is pretty much the exact logical equivalent of saying that poker eV is subjective because if you post a hand in the BC than different people will have different opinions on how to play the hand. The fact that there are different moral compasses doesn't even come close to proving that morality is relative.

Anyway, morality is an insanely complicated discussion, so I will grant you that a democratic political system is going to be quite error-prone if it enforces overly-specific moralizing (as a basic example: we as a political society hold "murder is bad" as a generalizing principle even though most people will agree that there are at least some scenarios where killing someone else is okay; we just don't trust a government with enforcing these rare nuances of the situation).

I think it's highly debatable that this argument and human-rights-based labor arguments fall under this overly nuanced purview, but we'll see if I feel like arguing this point after thinking on it for a bit.

[d0zer]

Morals are not absolute. They belong to individuals, and my morality is different from Steve's, Ian's, or Becky's morality. Some people think it is immoral for people in Indonesia to work for 50 cents an hour making products to be sold to Americans at Wal-mart. The clever observer however understands that those people employed for 50 cents an hour might be sleeping on the sidewalk if it weren't for the burgeoning export economy of Indonesia that enables them to have that 50 cent per hour job.

The only morality that should be legislated are the basic stuff like no murdering or stealing from or enslaving people. When governments get into specifics like social justice for wage-oppressed demographics, I just don't think much good can come of it.

You say that morality is relative, then you suggest the "basic stuff" should be legislated, implying that the "basic stuff" isn't relative, and that moral universalism does exist. Where the line for "basic stuff" is drawn is certainly going to vary from person to person, but if we accept that, then it certainly makes it hard to make statements like "the economy is more important than morals", because we have to tack on the caveat "unless those morals are the basic morals which still vary person to person".

[spoonitnow]

...implying that the "basic stuff" isn't relative...

This isn't true.

[d0zer]

This isn't true.

Eat a dick, troll

[spoonitnow]

Eat a dick, troll

I showed your Facebook picture of little man clawing out your eyeball the day before yesterday. She thought it was hilarious.

[surviva316]

This isn't true.

It implies that, regardless of whether or not morality is relative, there are rules still worth following, which is actually a much more important point to use against Renton's post than any argument against moral relativism itself.

[spoonitnow]

It implies that, regardless of whether or not morality is relative, there are rules still worth following, which is actually a much more important point to use against Renton's post than any argument against moral relativism itself.

Being worth legislating does not imply being worth following.

[surviva316]

Being worth legislating does not imply being worth following.

This both is true and does change my point on a practical level.

Anyway, the important thing is that by Renton's own admission, proving moral relativism isn't essential to proving that moral legislation should not happen. We could even (hypothetically) agree that a line in the sand should exist somewhere, but as I outlined in my other post, there's no reason to assume that this line precludes discussion on human-rights-based labor issues beyond slavery. All he established is that there's a line somewhere, and he personally believes that equity in the workplace among the sexes is beyond that line.

[Renton]

You say that morality is relative, then you suggest the "basic stuff" should be legislated, implying that the "basic stuff" isn't relative, and that moral universalism does exist. Where the line for "basic stuff" is drawn is certainly going to vary from person to person, but if we accept that, then it certainly makes it hard to make statements like "the economy is more important than morals", because we have to tack on the caveat "unless those morals are the basic morals which still vary person to person".

The liberty-based rights and morals I feel should be grouped differently and are in fact quite basic. And they are all consistent with a well functioning economy. But yeah, morality is relative and it eventually gets down to what your opinion is of what is right. To me the most important things that laws should enforce are individual liberty and justice for those who threaten the liberty or survival of others.