Discuss libertarianism for the Nth time

[Doktor Howl]

I do not believe that there are objective standards of moral or ethical conduct.

This would be fun to argue, but Iptuous's debating style has WON FOREVER.

Perhaps he'll argue it with you.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

For example, the statement "In our culture, married couples have consensual sex" isn't invalidated by a few examples to the contrary.

False dichotomy.  In our culture, men and women (and in some states, same-sex couples) consent to marriage, which includes consensual sex.  Instances of a man raping his wife are documented, and prosecuted, because we consider it to be wrong.

Is there any evidence that the child in question had a choice in the matter of him being "mentored", or was he forced into it by his parents?

yes

in fact, consent was more central to the manboy relationship than to the hetero marriages of the age.

Boys entered into such relationships from the age of twelve to about eighteen or nineteen, though some suggest they started around fifteen.[16] This was around the same age that Greek girls were given in marriage – also to adult husbands many years their senior. There was a difference between the two types of bonding: boys usually had to be courted and were free to choose their mate. Girls, on the other hand, were used for economic and political advantage, their marriages contracted at the discretion of the father and the suitor.

I was just about to quote that Cram

I do not believe that there are objective standards of moral or ethical conduct.

This would be fun to argue, but Iptuous's debating style has WON FOREVER.

Perhaps he'll argue it with you.

So you're not gonna discuss further with me, cause you're pissed at Iptuous? That doesn't seem to make much sense IMO.

[Doktor Howl]

So you're not gonna discuss further with me, cause you're pissed at Iptuous? That doesn't seem to make much sense IMO.

I am not expected to make sense to people with factory-condition brains.

[Elder Iptuous]

No.  insisting that there are no evil people is unsatisfying, but it certainly isn't messy or ambiguous.

Right.  Pol Pot was really a very nice man.

He is by your argument, since he did some really nice things, once.  it was even premeditated.

My argument says nothing of the kind.

Please point out where the fuck I said anything remotely like that.  Oh, wait, I said the exact OPPOSITE, several fucking times.

Done here.  Please find someone else's mouth to put words in.

Yeah, i know.
I responded to your parade of people that would be unsatisfying to not label as evil, even though i addressed that and admit that is the case, by misrepresenting what you said, too.
don't flounce just because i'm responding tit for tat....

You stated that people cannot be evil.

I gave a counterexample.

You then deliberately lied about what my argument states.

You win.  Enjoy your victory.

No. i stated that there's more than one way to look at it.
you gave an extreme example that i handily admitted would be completely unsatisfying to look at it with the view that actor and action should be divorced.  When I point out that more likely examples are vague, messy and with arbitrary boundaries, you trotted out another historical despot or mass murderer.
I guess I could concede to your absolute terms, but....
Nah.
i'll take the victory.  

[Elder Iptuous]

This would be fun to argue, but Iptuous's debating style has WON FOREVER.

Perhaps he'll argue it with you.

So you're not gonna discuss further with me, cause you're pissed at Iptuous? That doesn't seem to make much sense IMO.

You're not actually pissed at me, are you Dok?
I previously couldn't tell when you were serious on these forums or not.  But i had come to the conclusion that i'm acting on presently, that it's all just fun and games even if you sound serious.... if this isn't the case, i need to know what i should take as my cue to back off....

[Doktor Howl]

This would be fun to argue, but Iptuous's debating style has WON FOREVER.

Perhaps he'll argue it with you.

So you're not gonna discuss further with me, cause you're pissed at Iptuous? That doesn't seem to make much sense IMO.

You're not actually pissed at me, are you Dok?
I previously couldn't tell when you were serious on these forums or not.  But i had come to the conclusion that i'm acting on presently, that it's all just fun and games even if you sound serious.... if this isn't the case, i need to know what i should take as my cue to back off....

Does it matter?  You won, right?

[Elder Iptuous]

This would be fun to argue, but Iptuous's debating style has WON FOREVER.

Perhaps he'll argue it with you.

So you're not gonna discuss further with me, cause you're pissed at Iptuous? That doesn't seem to make much sense IMO.

You're not actually pissed at me, are you Dok?
I previously couldn't tell when you were serious on these forums or not.  But i had come to the conclusion that i'm acting on presently, that it's all just fun and games even if you sound serious.... if this isn't the case, i need to know what i should take as my cue to back off....

Does it matter?  You won, right?

well, yeah, but i'm not evil!

[Doktor Howl]

This would be fun to argue, but Iptuous's debating style has WON FOREVER.

Perhaps he'll argue it with you.

So you're not gonna discuss further with me, cause you're pissed at Iptuous? That doesn't seem to make much sense IMO.

You're not actually pissed at me, are you Dok?
I previously couldn't tell when you were serious on these forums or not.  But i had come to the conclusion that i'm acting on presently, that it's all just fun and games even if you sound serious.... if this isn't the case, i need to know what i should take as my cue to back off....

Does it matter?  You won, right?

well, yeah, but i'm not evil!

Sorry, Ippie.  Had a bit of irrationality for lunch.  At least they only last a few minutes instead of hours or days, anymore.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

This would be fun to argue, but Iptuous's debating style has WON FOREVER.

Perhaps he'll argue it with you.

So you're not gonna discuss further with me, cause you're pissed at Iptuous? That doesn't seem to make much sense IMO.

You're not actually pissed at me, are you Dok?
I previously couldn't tell when you were serious on these forums or not.  But i had come to the conclusion that i'm acting on presently, that it's all just fun and games even if you sound serious.... if this isn't the case, i need to know what i should take as my cue to back off....

Does it matter?  You won, right?

well, yeah, but i'm not evil!

Sorry, Ippie.  Had a bit of irrationality for lunch.  At least they only last a few minutes instead of hours or days, anymore.

So lets go back to debating then

I do not believe that there are objective standards of moral or ethical conduct.

This would be fun to argue (edited by Rat)

[Doktor Howl]

Okay, so let's establish a few terms.

Would "objective" be satisfied by being a universal value amongst current human societies?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Okay, so let's establish a few terms.

Would "objective" be satisfied by being a universal value amongst current human societies?

No, but I will concede that a value universally held by current human societies is a consensually agreed upon value and therefore it deserves far more consideration than some value I may personally hold but isn't universally accepted. It's still subjective, but it appears subjectively true to Humans in general, rather than subjectively true to a single tribe or individual. Objective values would be values that are Good or Bad notwithstanding the views of any humans.

If for the purpose of this argument you want to use objective to mean "generally agreed upon by most societies of humans on this planet" that's fine... as long as we understand that it is still 'subjective' in the end.

So using this definition of objective, I will amend my position to:

'Objective' standards of morals and ethics,  standards agreed upon by all societies of humans,  exist. However. these make up a very small percentage of moral and ethical beliefs or values. With some exceptions, these 'objective' values can help us determine if an act is moral or ethical according to the views of most humans. They can also be beneficial in informing our own subjective moral and ethical positions. If 99% of the societies on Earth say it is bad/wrong to randomly kill people, then a moral belief that it is acceptable to randomly kill people indicates that the latter is probably suffering from some sort of psychosis (Gone Postal) or is the victim of some terribly bad programming (Terrorists).

I'd go so far as to say that 'objective' morals and ethics can create a useful framework for determining/creating a set of social norms for moral and ethical issues.

[Doktor Howl]

Okay, so let's establish a few terms.

Would "objective" be satisfied by being a universal value amongst current human societies?

No, but I will concede that a value universally held by current human societies is a consensually agreed upon value and therefore it deserves far more consideration than some value I may personally hold but isn't universally accepted. It's still subjective, but it appears subjectively true to Humans in general, rather than subjectively true to a single tribe or individual. Objective values would be values that are Good or Bad notwithstanding the views of any humans.

If for the purpose of this argument you want to use objective to mean "generally agreed upon by most societies of humans on this planet" that's fine... as long as we understand that it is still 'subjective' in the end.

So using this definition of objective, I will amend my position to:

'Objective' standards of morals and ethics,  standards agreed upon by all societies of humans,  exist. However. these make up a very small percentage of moral and ethical beliefs or values. With some exceptions, these 'objective' values can help us determine if an act is moral or ethical according to the views of most humans. They can also be beneficial in informing our own subjective moral and ethical positions. If 99% of the societies on Earth say it is bad/wrong to randomly kill people, then a moral belief that it is acceptable to randomly kill people indicates that the latter is probably suffering from some sort of psychosis (Gone Postal) or is the victim of some terribly bad programming (Terrorists).

I'd go so far as to say that 'objective' morals and ethics can create a useful framework for determining/creating a set of social norms for moral and ethical issues.

Well, I think we can agree on murder, rape (all kinds), theft, and jaywalking, right?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think that for the most part, people are not pure "evil" or "good". That is a very simplistic way to view people, in my opinion. They are complicated; there is a spectrum of conscience and people exist somewhere on that spectrum, and the spectrum is influenced by cultural values. The closest thing to a pure evil personality I can think of are sociopaths, who are devoid of compassion and empathy, and types of delusional mental illness in which doing terrible things seems to be justified for an imaginary "greater good". Combine the two and add some megalomania and you have Pol Pot.

This does bring us to the "was Hitler an evil man, or was he a complicated, sick man who did evil things under the delusion that he was doing the best thing to preserve his country, his culture, and his people"?

I don't know. Nobody does.

I do know that saying that all Hitler-era Nazis were evil people completely discounts the humanity of young men who believed party propaganda or were forced into service. By that criterion, all US soldiers are evil people because of the military actions in Iraq and Vietnam. Furthermore, every member of the Republican party is an evil person.

[Doktor Howl]

I think that for the most part, people are not pure "evil" or "good". That is a very simplistic way to view people, in my opinion.

Pure isn't required.  Though it may be simplistic, it is sometimes the only safe presumption to make.

They are complicated; there is a spectrum of conscience and people exist somewhere on that spectrum, and the spectrum is influenced by cultural values. The closest thing to a pure evil personality I can think of are sociopaths, who are devoid of compassion and empathy, and types of delusional mental illness in which doing terrible things seems to be justified for an imaginary "greater good". Combine the two and add some megalomania and you have Pol Pot.

This does bring us to the "was Hitler an evil man, or was he a complicated, sick man who did evil things under the delusion that he was doing the best thing to preserve his country, his culture, and his people"?

I don't know. Nobody does.

I do know that saying that all Hitler-era Nazis were evil people completely discounts the humanity of young men who believed party propaganda or were forced into service. By that criterion, all US soldiers are evil people because of the military actions in Iraq and Vietnam. Furthermore, every member of the Republican party is an evil person.

That would apply if I had stated that the Wehrmacht was also evil (which I have not), and if I hadn't already allowed for people (and there were plenty of them, military and non-military) who were forced into the Nazi party.  Also, it does no good to blame the GOP for the war in Iraq.  The Dems fell all over themselves to rubber stamp it.  My conclusion is that the government as a whole is evil, party notwithstanding.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Okay, so let's establish a few terms.

Would "objective" be satisfied by being a universal value amongst current human societies?

No, but I will concede that a value universally held by current human societies is a consensually agreed upon value and therefore it deserves far more consideration than some value I may personally hold but isn't universally accepted. It's still subjective, but it appears subjectively true to Humans in general, rather than subjectively true to a single tribe or individual. Objective values would be values that are Good or Bad notwithstanding the views of any humans.

If for the purpose of this argument you want to use objective to mean "generally agreed upon by most societies of humans on this planet" that's fine... as long as we understand that it is still 'subjective' in the end.

So using this definition of objective, I will amend my position to:

'Objective' standards of morals and ethics,  standards agreed upon by all societies of humans,  exist. However. these make up a very small percentage of moral and ethical beliefs or values. With some exceptions, these 'objective' values can help us determine if an act is moral or ethical according to the views of most humans. They can also be beneficial in informing our own subjective moral and ethical positions. If 99% of the societies on Earth say it is bad/wrong to randomly kill people, then a moral belief that it is acceptable to randomly kill people indicates that the latter is probably suffering from some sort of psychosis (Gone Postal) or is the victim of some terribly bad programming (Terrorists).

I'd go so far as to say that 'objective' morals and ethics can create a useful framework for determining/creating a set of social norms for moral and ethical issues.

Well, I think we can agree on murder, rape (all kinds), theft, and jaywalking, right?

Sounds good, esp those damned jaywalkers! 

In fact I'd shorten it to crimes that restrict the freedoms  and person of another human. Rape, Murder, Slavery, various forms of Abuse