Political Crossfire Forums

[Kindred]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: And then he goes on with this strictly tautological garbage:

Quote:
The proposition is: preferred behaviour must exist.
Anyone who argues against the existence of preferred behaviour is demonstrating preferred behaviour.
Therefore no argument against the existence of preferred behaviour can be valid.


If you can't see the problem with the above syllogism, then you're just not trying hard enough.




Don't try to worm your way out of this by misusing "big words" that you obviously do not fully comprehend the meaning of. The term you are looking for is tautologous, not tautological. And it refers to the needless repetion of an idea or statement in a communication, not using the same word several times. That would be a redundancy.

The fact is your preferred behavior may be different from his preferred behavior but it is still preferred behavior. If you were existing free of the desire for preferred behavior you wouldn't be on this forum promoting your ideology.

The denial of preferred behavior is in itself an expression of this desire.



I think it's you who is in need of an English lesson


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tautological+

Quote: 1. needless repetition of an idea, esp. in words other than those of the immediate context, without imparting additional force or clearness, as in “widow woman.”
2. an instance of such repetition.
3. Logic. a. a compound propositional form all of whose instances are true, as “A or not A.”
b. an instance of such a form, as “This candidate will win or will not win.”

Quote: Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.


It’s nice to see you trying to follow the argument though, even if the big-person words throw you off a little :lol:

[cap'n queasy]

RueTheDay wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Animals survive without property.

All animals have territories, which they defend.

Territories, in such a case, are not property, they are a possession. A possession is something that is yours based upon the physical facts of occupation and use, and is only yours for as long as you can maintain that occupation and use (i.e., as long as you can defend it). Property is based upon title, and implies a set of rights to something even when you are not occupying and using it; as discussed before, these rights imply a duty on the part of others to respect them.

Territories=fight to keep
Properties=no need to fight to keep.

How can you not see the value to society in this?

[cap'n queasy]

Fido wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Liberty cannot be analyzed outside the context of self-government.

If there exists no absolute moral standard by which the individual can govern himself by, then a successful society with the feature of liberty is impossible.

So, by definition, denial of objective morality is a rejection of the principle of human liberty.

Quote: "Be not intimidated...
nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties
by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency.
These, as they are often used, are but three different names
for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice."
John Adams


And objective morality becomes objective through the process of agreement, and to agree, one must be free to express dissent. It is not democracy that is impossible with an objective morality, but objective morality that becomes impossible without democracy.

Sophistry.

You don't have to have the ability to dissent to agree. Plenty of societies have been authoritarian and yet plenty of people still agreed on things about the society. If they didn't authoritarianism would be impossible. Objective morality has existed far longer than democracy has. And agreement has nothing to do with a concept's objectivity.

At one time Germans nearly all agreed that Jews needed to be wiped out. You can hardly say this was a case of objective morality simply because they agreed on this course of action. .

[cap'n queasy]

Kindred wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: And then he goes on with this strictly tautological garbage:

Quote:
The proposition is: preferred behaviour must exist.
Anyone who argues against the existence of preferred behaviour is demonstrating preferred behaviour.
Therefore no argument against the existence of preferred behaviour can be valid.


If you can't see the problem with the above syllogism, then you're just not trying hard enough.




Don't try to worm your way out of this by misusing "big words" that you obviously do not fully comprehend the meaning of. The term you are looking for is tautologous, not tautological. And it refers to the needless repetion of an idea or statement in a communication, not using the same word several times. That would be a redundancy.

The fact is your preferred behavior may be different from his preferred behavior but it is still preferred behavior. If you were existing free of the desire for preferred behavior you wouldn't be on this forum promoting your ideology.

The denial of preferred behavior is in itself an expression of this desire.



I think it's you who is in need of an English lesson


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tautological+

Quote: 1. needless repetition of an idea, esp. in words other than those of the immediate context, without imparting additional force or clearness, as in “widow woman.”
2. an instance of such repetition.
3. Logic. a. a compound propositional form all of whose instances are true, as “A or not A.”
b. an instance of such a form, as “This candidate will win or will not win.”

Quote: Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.


It’s nice to see you trying to follow the argument though, even if the big-person words throw you off a little :lol:

It's not a tautologous statement.

It's a logical progression.

And he is correct while you are wrong. You definitely promote a preferred behavior mode. In fact there is no room for other behavior modes in your ideology, so you are, ironically, stuck arguing that preferred behavior does not exist to promote the behavior you prefer.

:lol:

[Fido]

cap'n queasy wrote: Fido wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Liberty cannot be analyzed outside the context of self-government.

If there exists no absolute moral standard by which the individual can govern himself by, then a successful society with the feature of liberty is impossible.

So, by definition, denial of objective morality is a rejection of the principle of human liberty.

Quote: "Be not intimidated...
nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties
by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency.
These, as they are often used, are but three different names
for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice."
John Adams


And objective morality becomes objective through the process of agreement, and to agree, one must be free to express dissent. It is not democracy that is impossible with an objective morality, but objective morality that becomes impossible without democracy.

Sophistry.

You don't have to have the ability to dissent to agree. Plenty of societies have been authoritarian and yet plenty of people still agreed on things about the society. If they didn't authoritarianism would be impossible. Objective morality has existed far longer than democracy has. And agreement has nothing to do with a concept's objectivity.

At one time Germans nearly all agreed that Jews needed to be wiped out. You can hardly say this was a case of objective morality simply because they agreed on this course of action. .

You hurt me, and yet we agree more than you know. First, I believe that all societies, even slave societies are democratic in that all must go along for the society to work, and not even slaves will be slaves against their will. Yet; I agree with you on the issue of the Nazis and the Jews, though I disagree with the statement that nearly all etc. Rather, this agreement as to right and wrong is exactly that which makes it appear an objective truth, but a morals relation to life, and to the support of life is the fact that actually brings it closer to an objective moral reality. To rephrase this, morals are often created to support the desires of a certain class which gives them a subjective relation to the life of the community. But a moral sanction against killing of all sort tends to support the life of the community and has general support as a result, and is considered objectively moral.
The ability to dissent is the opposite of the ability to assent, and one is meaningless without the other. It is impossible for one to be saved by religion if they have no choice to do otherwise, and it is only through freedom that one may pledge ones honor. Some say rejoice rejoice, you have no choice; but that is a cause only for lament, and also the cause of more immorality than morality since it is easier to prove ones self a free agent by dissent than by assent.

[Atlas Bergeron]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Animals survive without property.

All animals have territories, which they defend.

Property is merely how sentient beings adjudicate these territories without violence in a modern free society.

Even if a society existed that claimed that property did not exist, people would still have and defend their territories, even if it's only a clerk's desk in a government office somewhere in a dingy government office building or a little bureaucratic power over another. Only it would necessarily be under the aegis of a corrupt system as this behavior would be not sanctioned by the ideology that was in control. In fact collectivist ideology is specifically designed to try and remove this factor from human behavior and that is why they are simply not feasible.

Human beings are human beings and nothing is ever going to change that fact. Collectivist ideologies are worthless as all people will simply use them for their own personal benefit, This the reality of how human beings exist.

There is how human beings claim to run their affairs, and then there is how they actually do this.

The beauty of the American constitutional republic is that it takes this fact of nature into consideration. It's a damn good thing the political sophistry we are hearing here exists only in the minds of a few troubled persons and are, for now, not the curse to humanity that they have the potential to be.

The first and second lines were valid

Where exactly did the rest come from in relation to this debate?

Rant--thats what I thought

[Kindred]

Alright, take this line of reasoning:

Quote: Living organisms are part of material reality, and material reality is rational and objective. Applying moral theories is optional, but that does not mean that moral theories are subjective. The scientific method is optional, but it is not subjective. Applying biological classifications is optional, but biology is not subjective. Choices are optional; consequences are not. I can choose not to eat, but I cannot choose to live without eating. I can choose to behead someone, but I cannot choose whether or not they can live without a head. Morality is thus optional, but the effects of moral choices are measurable and objective. There is no subjectivity involved whatsoever..

What the author is doing here is attempting to muddy the water between biological fact and moral philosophy. The question is not, and never has been, ‘can a man live without a head’, the question is and always should be ‘ought a man die’ for reason X, Y, and Z.
Allow me to put it in simple terms. If this debate was about music, the author would be arguing that because throwing a stereo into a brick wall will destroy the stereo, there simply must be an absolute truth with regard to music: music is either ‘good’, or ‘bad’. It cannot be simultaneously ‘good’ and ‘bad’. The theory of relativity cannot argue that the speed of light is both constant and not constant at the same time, or that it is 186,000 miles per second, five fathoms in depth and also green in colour!

But alas, music is BOTH good and bad depending on the tastes of the individual listening to it; perceiving it etc. Person A here’s a beautiful harmony, Person B heres a maniacal cacophony; it is the precise same recording, but the conclusions reached are diametric opposites.

Let us shade the authors argument with the ‘music analogy’ and see if it makes as much sense.

Quote: First of all, we must remember that listening to music is optional. As we all know, every man is subject to gravity and requires food to live, but no man has to listen to fity cent. If I refuse to listen to music, no thunderbolt from the sky strikes me down.

The fact that listening to music is optional has confused many thinkers into believing that because listening to music is optional, music is subjective. Nothing could be further from the truth! Living organisms are part of material reality, and material reality is rational and objective. Listening to music is optional, but that does not mean that taste in music is subjective. The scientific method is optional, but it is not subjective. Applying biological classifications is optional, but biology is not subjective. Choices are optional; consequences are not. I can choose not to eat, but I cannot choose to live without eating. I can choose to behead someone, but I cannot choose whether or not they can live without a head. Listening to music is thus optional, but the effects of listening to music are measurable and objective. There is no subjectivity involved whatsoever.

Note: I hope that highlighted the non-argument formerly presented in that paragraph

Now, since music exists, the next question is: to what degree or extent does music exist? As mentioned above, the first test of any scientific theory is universality. Just as a theory of physics must apply to all matter, a music theory which claims to describe the absolute ‘goodness’ or ‘badness’ of music must apply to all mankind. No music theory can be valid if it argues that Bon Jovi is good in Syria, but bad in San Francisco. It cannot say that Person A likes The Drones, but Person B never liked The Drones. It cannot say that what was good yesterday is bad today – or vice versa. If it does, it is false and must be refined or discarded

[Katsumoto]

Kindred wrote: Alright, take this line of reasoning:

Quote: Living organisms are part of material reality, and material reality is rational and objective. Applying moral theories is optional, but that does not mean that moral theories are subjective. The scientific method is optional, but it is not subjective. Applying biological classifications is optional, but biology is not subjective. Choices are optional; consequences are not. I can choose not to eat, but I cannot choose to live without eating. I can choose to behead someone, but I cannot choose whether or not they can live without a head. Morality is thus optional, but the effects of moral choices are measurable and objective. There is no subjectivity involved whatsoever..

What the author is doing here is attempting to muddy the water between biological fact and moral philosophy. The question is not, and never has been, ‘can a man live without a head’, the question is and always should be ‘ought a man die’ for reason X, Y, and Z.
Allow me to put it in simple terms. If this debate was about music, the author would be arguing that because throwing a stereo into a brick wall will destroy the stereo, there simply must be an absolute truth with regard to music: music is either ‘good’, or ‘bad’. It cannot be simultaneously ‘good’ and ‘bad’. The theory of relativity cannot argue that the speed of light is both constant and not constant at the same time, or that it is 186,000 miles per second, five fathoms in depth and also green in colour!

But alas, music is BOTH good and bad depending on the tastes of the individual listening to it; perceiving it etc. Person A here’s a beautiful harmony, Person B heres a maniacal cacophony; it is the precise same recording, but the conclusions reached are diametric opposites.

Let us shade the authors argument with the ‘music analogy’ and see if it makes as much sense.

Quote: First of all, we must remember that listening to music is optional. As we all know, every man is subject to gravity and requires food to live, but no man has to listen to fity cent. If I refuse to listen to music, no thunderbolt from the sky strikes me down.

The fact that listening to music is optional has confused many thinkers into believing that because listening to music is optional, music is subjective. Nothing could be further from the truth! Living organisms are part of material reality, and material reality is rational and objective. Listening to music is optional, but that does not mean that taste in music is subjective. The scientific method is optional, but it is not subjective. Applying biological classifications is optional, but biology is not subjective. Choices are optional; consequences are not. I can choose not to eat, but I cannot choose to live without eating. I can choose to behead someone, but I cannot choose whether or not they can live without a head. Listening to music is thus optional, but the effects of listening to music are measurable and objective. There is no subjectivity involved whatsoever.

Note: I hope that highlighted the non-argument formerly presented in that paragraph

Now, since music exists, the next question is: to what degree or extent does music exist? As mentioned above, the first test of any scientific theory is universality. Just as a theory of physics must apply to all matter, a music theory which claims to describe the absolute ‘goodness’ or ‘badness’ of music must apply to all mankind. No music theory can be valid if it argues that Bon Jovi is good in Syria, but bad in San Francisco. It cannot say that Person A likes The Drones, but Person B never liked The Drones. It cannot say that what was good yesterday is bad today – or vice versa. If it does, it is false and must be refined or discarded

This appears to be a weak analogy. In order for the analogy to hold, Music and Morality must be concepts of the same order (i.e. similar enough to draw logical comparrison). The author claims that Morality is equivilent to a science in describing preferred human behavior (just as physics is the science which describes the behavior of matter). In order for your comparrison to be logically valid it must also be a concept of a similar nature.

[Kindred]

Katsumoto wrote: Kindred wrote: Alright, take this line of reasoning:

Quote: Living organisms are part of material reality, and material reality is rational and objective. Applying moral theories is optional, but that does not mean that moral theories are subjective. The scientific method is optional, but it is not subjective. Applying biological classifications is optional, but biology is not subjective. Choices are optional; consequences are not. I can choose not to eat, but I cannot choose to live without eating. I can choose to behead someone, but I cannot choose whether or not they can live without a head. Morality is thus optional, but the effects of moral choices are measurable and objective. There is no subjectivity involved whatsoever..

What the author is doing here is attempting to muddy the water between biological fact and moral philosophy. The question is not, and never has been, ‘can a man live without a head’, the question is and always should be ‘ought a man die’ for reason X, Y, and Z.
Allow me to put it in simple terms. If this debate was about music, the author would be arguing that because throwing a stereo into a brick wall will destroy the stereo, there simply must be an absolute truth with regard to music: music is either ‘good’, or ‘bad’. It cannot be simultaneously ‘good’ and ‘bad’. The theory of relativity cannot argue that the speed of light is both constant and not constant at the same time, or that it is 186,000 miles per second, five fathoms in depth and also green in colour!

But alas, music is BOTH good and bad depending on the tastes of the individual listening to it; perceiving it etc. Person A here’s a beautiful harmony, Person B heres a maniacal cacophony; it is the precise same recording, but the conclusions reached are diametric opposites.

Let us shade the authors argument with the ‘music analogy’ and see if it makes as much sense.

Quote: First of all, we must remember that listening to music is optional. As we all know, every man is subject to gravity and requires food to live, but no man has to listen to fity cent. If I refuse to listen to music, no thunderbolt from the sky strikes me down.

The fact that listening to music is optional has confused many thinkers into believing that because listening to music is optional, music is subjective. Nothing could be further from the truth! Living organisms are part of material reality, and material reality is rational and objective. Listening to music is optional, but that does not mean that taste in music is subjective. The scientific method is optional, but it is not subjective. Applying biological classifications is optional, but biology is not subjective. Choices are optional; consequences are not. I can choose not to eat, but I cannot choose to live without eating. I can choose to behead someone, but I cannot choose whether or not they can live without a head. Listening to music is thus optional, but the effects of listening to music are measurable and objective. There is no subjectivity involved whatsoever.

Note: I hope that highlighted the non-argument formerly presented in that paragraph

Now, since music exists, the next question is: to what degree or extent does music exist? As mentioned above, the first test of any scientific theory is universality. Just as a theory of physics must apply to all matter, a music theory which claims to describe the absolute ‘goodness’ or ‘badness’ of music must apply to all mankind. No music theory can be valid if it argues that Bon Jovi is good in Syria, but bad in San Francisco. It cannot say that Person A likes The Drones, but Person B never liked The Drones. It cannot say that what was good yesterday is bad today – or vice versa. If it does, it is false and must be refined or discarded

This appears to be a weak analogy. In order for the analogy to hold, Music and Morality must be concepts of the same order (i.e. similar enough to draw logical comparrison). The author claims that Morality is equivilent to a science in describing preferred human behavior (just as physics is the science which describes the behavior of matter). In order for your comparrison to be logically valid it must also be a concept of a similar nature.

And what are the differences between taste in music and moral values? Are they more pronounced than the difference between moral values and the biological sciences? Can you explain why music should be subjective in this rational and objective world whilst morality is not?

[Katsumoto]

Kindred wrote:
And what are the differences between taste in music and moral values? Are they more pronounced than the difference between moral values and the biological sciences? Can you explain why music should be subjective in this rational and objective world whilst morality is not?

Music itself is just notes, sounds arranged in a particular pattern. Music does not describe all sounds, nor is it a science by which we can classify sound. On the other hand, according to this author, Morality does describe all human preferred behaviors, and it is a science by which we can classify those behaviors as moral or immoral, by means of the scientific method.

[Kindred]

Katsumoto wrote: Kindred wrote:
And what are the differences between taste in music and moral values? Are they more pronounced than the difference between moral values and the biological sciences? Can you explain why music should be subjective in this rational and objective world whilst morality is not?

Music itself is just notes, sounds arranged in a particular pattern. Music does not describe all sounds, nor is it a science by which we can classify sound. On the other hand, according to this author, Morality does describe all human preferred behaviors, and it is a science by which we can classify those behaviors as moral or immoral, by means of the scientific method.

Regardless, the fact that subjectivity in tastes exists disproves the notion that the world is rationally defined and consistent, or as they say A is always A.

[jawsome]

Kindred wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Kindred wrote:
And what are the differences between taste in music and moral values? Are they more pronounced than the difference between moral values and the biological sciences? Can you explain why music should be subjective in this rational and objective world whilst morality is not?

Music itself is just notes, sounds arranged in a particular pattern. Music does not describe all sounds, nor is it a science by which we can classify sound. On the other hand, according to this author, Morality does describe all human preferred behaviors, and it is a science by which we can classify those behaviors as moral or immoral, by means of the scientific method.

Regardless, the fact that subjectivity in tastes exists disproves the notion that the world is rationally defined and consistent, or as they say A is always A.

Bingo.

I've brought this up many times with Objectivists and have yet to receive a satisfactory explanation.

[Kindred]

Furthermore, even things such as this:


Quote: The scientific method is optional, but it is not subjective. Applying biological classifications is optional, but biology is not subjective.

are not settled. They're all part of the greater post-modern 'problematic'. Species classification can be subjective, and some would argue can never be objective. Even within the community the debate about what classifies something as a 'species' is far from settled; three main strains exist- morphological, bio-chemical and reproductive. So even the authors examples of what he considers truly 'objective' are themselves open to subjective opinion.

[Kindred]

Katsumoto wrote: Kindred wrote:
And what are the differences between taste in music and moral values? Are they more pronounced than the difference between moral values and the biological sciences? Can you explain why music should be subjective in this rational and objective world whilst morality is not?

Music itself is just notes, sounds arranged in a particular pattern. Music does not describe all sounds, nor is it a science by which we can classify sound. On the other hand, according to this author, Morality does describe all human preferred behaviors, and it is a science by which we can classify those behaviors as moral or immoral, by means of the scientific method.

Also, equating morality with evolutionary adaptations such as breathing is ridiculous. We breath because we must; it is not a preffered behaviour unless we are all victims of our own physiological limitations.
The idea that morality can be extrapolated from evolution is a nefarious thought indeed. It characterises the difference between what 'is' and what 'ought' to be. If, through genetic analysis I was to show that rape was benefitial to individuals and the species at large, that would not make rape any more morally correct.

[Fido]

Kindred wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Kindred wrote:
And what are the differences between taste in music and moral values? Are they more pronounced than the difference between moral values and the biological sciences? Can you explain why music should be subjective in this rational and objective world whilst morality is not?

Music itself is just notes, sounds arranged in a particular pattern. Music does not describe all sounds, nor is it a science by which we can classify sound. On the other hand, according to this author, Morality does describe all human preferred behaviors, and it is a science by which we can classify those behaviors as moral or immoral, by means of the scientific method.

Also, equating morality with evolutionary adaptations such as breathing is ridiculous. We breath because we must; it is not a preffered behaviour unless we are all victims of our own physiological limitations.
The idea that morality can be extrapolated from evolution is a nefarious thought indeed. It characterises the difference between what 'is' and what 'ought' to be. If, through genetic analysis I was to show that rape was benefitial to individuals and the species at large, that would not make rape any more morally correct.

We have evolved these great big brains that are capable of keeping past knowledge and projecting what is known into the future. We do not know the consequences of every action, but as soon as we know the negative outcome of any action it brings forth a moral prohibition. Human beings as we are, and the fact that we exist at all is the result of one moral prohibition against incest shared by all societies from time beyond memory. Morality does not contrast is with ought, but ought with not; in that what a person ought to do is not that which they should not do. The bed rock of morality springs from avoidance of known negative consequences. Morality stated as a positive is loyalty and affection for ones kin, and behind it all is the continuance of life. Shall I also mention that morality before it has the force of law is also a recognition that each is a free agent even while society may suffer the freedom of the individual?

[Katsumoto]

Kindred wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Kindred wrote:
And what are the differences between taste in music and moral values? Are they more pronounced than the difference between moral values and the biological sciences? Can you explain why music should be subjective in this rational and objective world whilst morality is not?

Music itself is just notes, sounds arranged in a particular pattern. Music does not describe all sounds, nor is it a science by which we can classify sound. On the other hand, according to this author, Morality does describe all human preferred behaviors, and it is a science by which we can classify those behaviors as moral or immoral, by means of the scientific method.

Regardless, the fact that subjectivity in tastes exists disproves the notion that the world is rationally defined and consistent, or as they say A is always A.

How do you figure that? The fact that subjectivity in tastes exists says nothing about objective reality. It does not change the nature of taste itself. A spicy dish may be awful to me and delightful to you but that does not change the objective fact that it is spicy.

[Katsumoto]

Kindred wrote:
Also, equating morality with evolutionary adaptations such as breathing is ridiculous. We breath because we must; it is not a preffered behaviour unless we are all victims of our own physiological limitations.

We breathe because it is in our best interests to do so. It is a physical requirement of living for sure, but you can choose not to breathe, you just can’t choose to live without breathing.

Quote: The idea that morality can be extrapolated from evolution is a nefarious thought indeed. It characterises the difference between what 'is' and what 'ought' to be. If, through genetic analysis I was to show that rape was benefitial to individuals and the species at large, that would not make rape any more morally correct.

No it wouldn’t as I will show. Rape is immoral because it is an internally inconsistent action. The author stated as much; “Rape can never be moral, since any principle which approves it automatically contradicts itself. If rape is justified on the principle that ‘taking pleasure is always good,’ then such a principle immediately fails the test of logical consistency, since the rapist may be ‘taking pleasure,’ but his victim certainly is not.”

But let’s take your example. I fail to see how you could possibly prove through genetic analysis that rape was beneficial to individuals and the species. The first question I would ask is to which individuals is it genetically advantageous? The answer can only be to those born of rape. Obviously neither the rapist nor his victim can benefit. So it is not the action of rape itself which is beneficial but the genetic material. So clearly you cannot say rape is moral on the principal that it genetically benefits the child born of rape, because the act of rape itself does not contribute to one’s genetic make-up.

[Kindred]

Katsumoto wrote: Kindred wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Kindred wrote:
And what are the differences between taste in music and moral values? Are they more pronounced than the difference between moral values and the biological sciences? Can you explain why music should be subjective in this rational and objective world whilst morality is not?

Music itself is just notes, sounds arranged in a particular pattern. Music does not describe all sounds, nor is it a science by which we can classify sound. On the other hand, according to this author, Morality does describe all human preferred behaviors, and it is a science by which we can classify those behaviors as moral or immoral, by means of the scientific method.

Regardless, the fact that subjectivity in tastes exists disproves the notion that the world is rationally defined and consistent, or as they say A is always A.

How do you figure that? The fact that subjectivity in tastes exists says nothing about objective reality. It does not change the nature of taste itself. A spicy dish may be awful to me and delightful to you but that does not change the objective fact that it is spicy.

But it does mean that things can simultaneously be two things at once, hence debunking the A=A argument thought.

[Kindred]

Quote: We breathe because it is in our best interests to do so. It is a physical requirement of living for sure, but you can choose not to breathe, you just can’t choose to live without breathing.

That tells us absolutely nothing about the morality of not breathing. You should educate yourself on the difference between ought and is. Read some Hume or something.

Quote: No it wouldn’t as I will show. Rape is immoral because it is an internally inconsistent action. The author stated as much; “Rape can never be moral, since any principle which approves it automatically contradicts itself. If rape is justified on the principle that ‘taking pleasure is always good,’ then such a principle immediately fails the test of logical consistency, since the rapist may be ‘taking pleasure,’ but his victim certainly is not.”

That’s an entirely different argument. The argument I’m presenting, which the author consistently presents is not a utilitarian argument, but an premise which states that that which is ought to be so. In other word, blurring the difference between a fact and a value.

Quote: But let’s take your example. I fail to see how you could possibly prove through genetic analysis that rape was beneficial to individuals and the species. The first question I would ask is to which individuals is it genetically advantageous? The answer can only be to those born of rape. Obviously neither the rapist nor his victim can benefit. So it is not the action of rape itself which is beneficial but the genetic material. So clearly you cannot say rape is moral on the principal that it genetically benefits the child born of rape, because the act of rape itself does not contribute to one’s genetic make-up.

Rape promotes the continuation of genes without investing in the laborious and resource-expensive task of raising a child (for the male), hence from a strictly evolutionary sense, it is a high benefit, low cost method of passing on your genetic informaiton. It also promotes genetic heterozygosity , particularly in relatively closed group environments which were purported to be typical of our ancestry.

[Gus]

Science is not objective...the first prerequisite for a scientific observation is an observer...