On Renarin and Rlain

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

28 minutes ago, therunner said:

What are you even trying to say here?

All you are saying are circular definitions, things are wrong because they are wrong. Those are empty statements.

Question is, why do people consider those things to be wrong, not the mere fact that they consider them as such.
 

To be extremely explicit: using the example of murder as a universal wrong is pointless because the concept of murder contains within it the notion of wrong. This is the meaning of the word as I understand it. To say killing a person is wrong is different from saying murder is wrong. An executioner for works for the state is not seen to be a murderer by that state. A soldier who kills the enemy in war is not seen to be a murderer. A person who kills in self defense is not called a murderer. Thus, the word murder is not useful in discussions of morality, because it is defined as wrong. If the killing is not wrong, it is not murder.

31 minutes ago, therunner said:

Everyone has morality, calling it 'aestethics of prideful priests' is myopic. Also, I would say that most people can agree that they desire 'beautiful' or 'good' world, the problem comes from the fact that what is 'beautiful' or 'good' changes from person to person. That does not preclude trying to find more universal moral reasoning. E.g. killing or betraying your kin is considered bad in basically every culture we know of, hence it is a (nearly) universal moral value. Homophobia by contrast, is not.

Understanding that your morality is not universal is healthy standpoint, however that does not mean that we have to embrace moral relativism, again some rules are...laughable I would say.

Simply saying "that's myopic" or "the alternative is absurd" doesn't make a compelling argument to me. Further, I don't find any meaningful appeal in the reason "s considered bad in basically every culture we know of, hence it is a (nearly) universal moral value." Why does it matter how many cultures believe a certain thing?

Also, you stated your views are grounded in "care-based ethics, i.e. behaviours that promote healthy relationships and well-being of individuals, and their interdependance." Why does commonality across cultures matter to you then? If it was common across most cultures to abandon the elderly to the wilderness, would that be meaningful in your grounding?

In my own, I see queer relationships as good because they add to the variety of the world. To suppose that romantic and sexual love can only be expressed in a certain way is to limit the potential for the expression. This is thus wrong to me. Further, I am deeply opposed to arguments which suppose actions like sex ought to serve some purpose, the roman catholic line against homosexuality being one of these (I have actually looked to the catechism to get a sense of this), and I am one to agree with Oscar Wilde: What is truly beautiful is utterly useless.

[Nitpicking]

My reaction to the R&R romance: eh.

I'm not offended by it. I'm just not interested. They seem to just be randomly infatuated somehow, without really having even interacted much on-page.

[therunner he/him]

On 4/2/2025 at 9:16 PM, ParaTulip said:

To be extremely explicit: using the example of murder as a universal wrong is pointless because the concept of murder contains within it the notion of wrong. This is the meaning of the word as I understand it. To say killing a person is wrong is different from saying murder is wrong. An executioner for works for the state is not seen to be a murderer by that state. A soldier who kills the enemy in war is not seen to be a murderer. A person who kills in self defense is not called a murderer. Thus, the word murder is not useful in discussions of morality, because it is defined as wrong. If the killing is not wrong, it is not murder.

...then you agree with me that liking homosexuality to murder is bad comparison?

On 4/2/2025 at 9:16 PM, ParaTulip said:

Simply saying "that's myopic" or "the alternative is absurd" doesn't make a compelling argument to me.

I am sorry, but if you make broad statements like " Morality is just the aesthetics of prideful priests.", and then in the same breath literally describe your moral outlook, you are being myopic...or you consider yourself to be a prideful priest.

So it was less an argument, and more an observation on the contradictory nature of your statements.

On 4/2/2025 at 9:16 PM, ParaTulip said:

Further, I don't find any meaningful appeal in the reason "s considered bad in basically every culture we know of, hence it is a (nearly) universal moral value." Why does it matter how many cultures believe a certain thing?

Definition of the word universal

• Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration; applicable in all cases: synonym: general.

If all human societies independently came to conclusion that killing of in-group members is bad, that renders if universal moral value by definition of the words, and hence leads to existence of the concept of murder in the first place.

On 4/2/2025 at 9:16 PM, ParaTulip said:

Also, you stated your views are grounded in "care-based ethics, i.e. behaviours that promote healthy relationships and well-being of individuals, and their interdependance." Why does commonality across cultures matter to you then? If it was common across most cultures to abandon the elderly to the wilderness, would that be meaningful in your grounding?

Commonality matters in a sense of setting universal baseline, in the same sense that scientific fact is something that exists independently of human culture, whereas religion does not.

To personal morality, commonality matters little. To discuss morality in broader setting, commonality across cultures can set baseline expectations.

Quote

In my own, I see queer relationships as good because they add to the variety of the world. To suppose that romantic and sexual love can only be expressed in a certain way is to limit the potential for the expression. This is thus wrong to me. Further, I am deeply opposed to arguments which suppose actions like sex ought to serve some purpose, the roman catholic line against homosexuality being one of these (I have actually looked to the catechism to get a sense of this), and I am one to agree with Oscar Wilde: What is truly beautiful is utterly useless.

Sure why not. 

But if you want to discuss morality (as you stated previously), your personal opposition to some line of argumentation is not an argument on its own. You don't have to like something for it to be valid argument, otherwise we are just discussing our preferences and nothing else. Which is also fine, however you seemed to be interested in deeper discussion

Quote

However,  I have seen these kinds of arguments before. I have felt that they are flawed on a deep level, and I am hoping this discussion will be a place where less flawed arguments might be forged.

Edited April 6, 2025 by therunner

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

On 4/6/2025 at 2:08 AM, therunner said:

..then you agree with me that liking homosexuality to murder is bad comparison?

The contrary: I disagree, because I take a broader perspective on what makes a statement good or bad. I understand that most societies have taboos around sex and death in various forms. It might be good for someone to make that comparison as a way to illustrate their particular mode of moral reasoning.

On 4/6/2025 at 2:08 AM, therunner said:

or you consider yourself to be a prideful priest.

So it was less an argument, and more an observation on the contradictory nature of your statements.

I think being able to willfully hold to contradictions is an innate part of the nature of existing for me. To be both sacred and profane is, from my perspective, the normal way of being.

On 4/6/2025 at 2:08 AM, therunner said:

If all human societies independently came to conclusion that killing of in-group members is bad, that renders if universal moral value by definition of the words, and hence leads to existence of the concept of murder in the first place.

But the way the in group is defined varies by society. Once, the Ottoman state would have all of the sons of the prior Sultan fight in a battle to the death, turning their  armies on one another, to vie for their father's throne. This was the expectation and the norm. It was not rejected. What is the universal notion of an in-group if it is not one's siblings?

Please do not call my myopic again if you are going to claim something is universal when there are clear counter examples in the historic record. I see well enough to know that notions of the universal are most often either illusions or whatever it is about math that makes it so unreasonably effective. It is not that something is common that makes it universal, but that it is true in all cases.