To adopt the Wikipedia article’s terms, I am arguing in favour of moral objectivism/realism, not moral absolutism. To quote from a helpful distinction it makes:

* “Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.”
* “Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.”

I think moral absolutism (e.g., the Kantian categorical imperative) is untenable; there is never one moral principle which wins out in all contexts. We often need to balance several moral principles (e.g., in the context of 377A, the right to privacy vs. the value of family and child-raising). But the ‘several moral principles’ are objective, in the sense of being valid regardless of social custom. This is the subtext of the ‘repeal 377A’ movement, isn’t it? Morality cannot be held hostage by custom.

Genuine disagreement implies something to disagree over. For example, “I disagree with your giving priority to the value of embryonic life over the mother’s right to autonomous choice over her own body.” Disagreement implies that we are using the same moral building-blocks, albeit in different ways. In short, moral objectivism. Relativism, on the other hand, would simply insist that the concepts and values of one culture/religion/person cannot be compared to those of another culture/religion/person. If so, any ‘disagreement’ would be empty, a case of me liking vanilla and you liking peppermint and you trying to ‘demonstrate’ that I’m ‘wrong’. There’d be no room for any moral discourse — and yet, moral discourse takes place all the time around us.

#How about (1) the sanctity of human life; and (2) the fact that a person’s height is not generally a valid basis for discrimination in deciding who should live or die?#

The point is, if one is arguing for an absolute morality (moral absolutism in philosophical terms), the above 2 questions are irrelevant. To quote wikipedia (I believe it is)
“Moral absolutism is the meta-ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. Thus lying, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., saving a life).” This is the same point I was trying to make in an earlier post (which for some reason or other TOC feels is in need of moderation and has not put up yet)

#Disagreement is possible, rather than nonsensical, because we all begin from the same rough starting-point, with a working set of abstract moral standards. Relativism denies this, and thus leads us into absurdity#

Relativism does not deny disagreement over different moral positions. Although there are no absolute, concrete rights or wrongs in relativism, intrinsic ethical judgements do exist as abstracta, differing for each perception of an ethical outlook. That being so, disagreement is possible in relativism. On the other hand if moral absolutism dictates that certain actions are right or wrong e.g. “The statement “wearing black shoes is wrong” regardless of the context of the act, what room is there left for disagreement?

A) Your response mis-addresses my point. “I have no problem with anyone who wants to fight for his belief” doesn’t answer the question of whether your rationality is convinced that homosexuals are right in the equal-rights fight.

Perhaps my wording was unclear.

“right in the equal-rights fight” is not equivalent to “right in fighting for equal rights”

Simply put: do you think equal rights should be afforded to gays? Why?

B) Does pointing out that the anti-gay movement is driven in part by religious convictions insult your being, your loved ones, the things that are dear and near to you…?

C) “God hates fags” is not my notion of God. It is Fred Phelps’, a rather infamous christian bigot. I was quoting him. One thing that can be said for Freddy is he doesn’t pretend to be politically-correct, or reasonable, or that his convictions need anything other than the inerrant word of God.

D) Oh, the famous inscrutability of God(s). It’s just seems all too convenient that God(s) is plenty explicit when used to reinforce a position but infinitely inscrutable when used to defend one. Would you accept this rationale from adherents of other Gods should their beliefs come in conflict with your own?

E) Correct me if I am wrong but wasn’t 377 repealed largely because it was just too disingenuous to be held up anymore? If that’s the case, is that the “approach” you would suggest the gays take? Hang in there until people realize 377A is ridiculous?

F) And if 377A is repealed and the fight moves on to same-sex marriage, would your advice be the same?

G) “This is why the gays have to reassess their approach and work with the other ‘neutral’ majority.”

If finger-pointing at Religion is without grounds, then yes I agree, it is counter-productive to lay the blame at the feet of shadows.

But what if religion is a vocal stumbling block? (Small doesn’t mean less vocal or less influential.) Would you then agree that gays should take them on, and call them out?

“First, I just want to point out that the ‘morals’ being spouted so far are superficial. … Even your example of “people below height x should be killed being classified as immoral is superficial. NO underlying reason were ever given. At least no valid ones.

How about (1) the sanctity of human life; and (2) the fact that a person’s height is not generally a valid basis for discrimination in deciding who should live or die?

Disagreements surrounding these moral standards do occur, but they are generally disagreements over how the standards ought to be applied in specific cases, not over the standards themselves.

Which brings me to the second point. What is ‘valid’ reasons? That differs from person to person, from place to place, from time to time. Reasons also allude to having an goal/target/objective. But these also differ. So how can an objective moral possibly exist?

In everyday discourse, people readily recognize what qualifies as a valid moral reason. “I punched her because she had blonde hair” is not obviously a valid reason. Neither is “I stole a pair of shoes from the store ‘cos I was feeling bored”. Conversely, “I drove at 120km/h ‘cos I had to rush my very sick daughter to the hospital” counts as a valid reason.

The fact is, we can argue about relativism and subjectivism until we’re blue in the face… and then we’ll each happily go on with our lives, passing moral judgments of our own, even elsewhere on TOC itself, over MAS’ financial losses, the profligacy of civil servants, the poor calibre of the new NMPs, and the thousands of issues and people which concern our lives. A relativist stance is at best an indulgence for our free time, just like other philosophical oddities like the ‘brain-in-a-vat’ and the ‘free will’ problem.

People are certainly free to make explicit their own moral judgements, but should not expect everyone to follow them.

Nor am I insisting that we should. However, moral discourse involves a certain common vocabulary which all of us can engage in, making discussion possible. It explains why we can disagree meaningfully at all, rather than every one speaking his or her own peculiar language, “You shouldn’t take other people’s things, only those which are irregularly-shaped”; “Taking people’s things is okay if you take a maximum of two per day.” Disagreement is possible, rather than nonsensical, because we all begin from the same rough starting-point, with a working set of abstract moral standards. Relativism denies this, and thus leads us into absurdity.

haha…. you are right. Just imagine 5 millions “potential-to-be” innocent children died of that. We male are just born to be murderer , haha.

First, I just want to point out that the ‘morals’ being spouted so far are superficial. Do not do this, or do not do that. etc Even your example of “people below height x should be killed being classified as immoral is superficial. NO underlying reason were ever given. At least no valid ones.

Which brings me to the second point. What is ‘valid’ reasons? That differs from person to person, from place to place, from time to time. Reasons also allude to having an goal/target/objective. But these also differ. So how can an objective moral possibly exist?

Which may lead to a third point. What is the definition of ‘objective’ here? Are there limit/constraints involved? For example, are we talking about morality in the 21st century only? Are we limiting it to ‘civilized’ societies as we know it? i.e tribes in some ulu area excluded.

In short, to answer your question… ‘false neutrality’ may be the only logical possible position for a objective person to take. People are certainly free to make explicit their ownmoral judgements, but should not expect everyoneto follow them.

Masturbation should be criminalized because it’s an awful waste of sperm.

Again, that’s a useless rebuttal, because all you’re saying is that objective moral standards will generate different conclusions under different factual circumstances. The bolded phrase gives this away: your controlling moral principle is that of minimizing suffering, which justifies the killing (something like euthanasia) in the society described. In short, Suffering A (getting killed) is outweighed by Suffering B (being lost in the grass) in this case; but in another case where Suffering B does not exist, then inflicting Suffering A would be wrong.

This shows that even when you’re citing examples from other cultures which ‘prove’ relativism, you cannot divorce your narration of that cultural practice from some implicit moral judgment. So why not make those moral judgments explicit, rather than cloaking oneself in false neutrality?

The argument does go the whole hog, although it draws a distinction between biological and mechanical barriers. i.e. If a married couple is infertile and has sex, the limiting biological condition does not prevent them from realizing the unitive two-part good of marriage (affection + children). However, if they deliberately set up mechanical barriers to procreation (contraceptives, coitus interruptus), then their sex is as morally worthless as masturbation, homosexual sex, etc., since it’s sex that involves only affection. Since the sexual activity cannot realize the moral good it seeks to achieve, all that one is doing is treating one’s body as an instrument, and therefore dehumanizing onself (interestingly, even Kant condemned masturbation on similar grounds).

Would you say that a person willing to bite the bullet and condemn the use of contraceptives, as well as masturbation and adultery, would be justified in condemning homosexual sex as well? Of course, he or she might believe at the same time that such immoral acts ought not to be criminalized, but purely on pragmatic grounds. So theoretically, if such acts somehow became a real threat to society, the State could legitimately criminalize masturbation, adultery, etc.

then why respond? ;)

You make it sound so easy, and that’s what it is all about isn’t it? So come one, come all! Enough of this bickering along lines that do no one any good. You guys have your work cut out for you and you need to go out there more than I.
;)

Yes, do it please.

Get the monogamist gay people to ‘police’ the hedonistic gay people – tell them to stop their promiscuity and their drug-use because this negative stereotype is what sticks in people’s mind.

Get them to also tell those more effeminate ones to rein in their effeminacy because that’s another rope that the majority finds disdainful.

Get them to tell the butches to stop being so.. butchy.

Essentially put on a more pleasing front – don’t give the discriminators any rope to hang them with.

Also, persuade all of them agree to come to a compromise with the other camp – Agree that in return for removal of section 377a, never to bring up the issue of same-sex marriage and adoption.

Good luck with that.

Being pissed is not an action. Eagerly yearning is not an action. If you feel that taking on a softer approach is a better way, by all means go ahead. Go out there and convert those who are non-gay and not anti-gay. What’s stopping you or your friends?

Hope is nothing without action.