If your opinion can be wrong then it isn't subjective, it's an objective claim about reality.
Obama's call for gay rights makes history
- Thread starter zone
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
If your opinion can be wrong then it isn't subjective, it's an objective claim about reality.
technically equality is a driving froce behind decisions like these...if its placed before the SCotUS then equality will be the basis of the pro argument. same way Brown v Board of Education was decided and other issues such as women's suffrage and the civil rights act. All based initially on views of equality.
B
Batman007
Guest
What? Of course not. If my opinion can be wrong then it's subjective. That's what subjective is: opinion. Right or wrong, subjective is a statement based on opinion. So of course it can be incorrect.
Yes, but the conceptualisation of equality within American political philosophy comes from the existence of an objective moral reality - the Law of Nature, according to which men have certain rights bestowed upon them by their creator according to the nature of creation.
Batman007 denies the existence of any such law, and therefore denies the objective philosophical basis upon which arguments from equality are made. Unless an appeal is made to such a law, there is no reason to think that people are actually equal; without it, equality is just an fictitious concept with no connection to reality, and therefore no rational argument can be based upon it.
B
Batman007
Guest
"There is no reason to think that people are actually equal"
Ok, let me tell you my reason. What's the alternative to what you say? That people aren't equal. So who decides who should be granted what and who should be denied what?
Nobody can. Nobody has that power.
Therefore, give everyone equal opportunities. That way there is no 'this person is better/worse than that person'.
Saying that difficulties might arise over who should be granted or denied certain things does not make anything true or false. You're essentially saying "there are problems that arise if statement X is true, therefore statement X is false." That is an appeal to consequences - a fallacious method of reasoning.
It may very well be a difficult statement to accept, and it may cause problems. Yes, we may very well have difficulty in determining what people are granted or denied; that doesn't mean the alternative you spoke of isn't true.
It may very well be a difficult statement to accept, and it may cause problems. Yes, we may very well have difficulty in determining what people are granted or denied; that doesn't mean the alternative you spoke of isn't true.
So the alternative is to say that people are not equal. The fact that this is difficult to accept or raises problems makes no difference to whether or not it is actually true. Let's go over this again.
1. It is either the case that people are equal or it is not the case that people are equal.
2. The claim "people are equal" can be true if and only if there is a reality unto which the claim can correspond.
3. There is no such reality.
4. The claim "people are equal" is not true.
_______________________
Therefore it is not the case that people are equal.
Examine the four premises of the argument. Premise #1 is undeniable, as it rests upon the Law of Non-Contradiction. You yourself are the person asserting Premise #3. Premise #4 follows undeniably from Premise #3.
The only disputable one is Premise #2, which is what most of this discussion has focused on. In order to say "people are equal", you need to provide supporting reasoning in order to argue that this equality actually exists. This is always accomplished via making objective claims about reality and morality that can be supported through reason.
When you say it's all a matter of personal preference and that no objective statements can be made, you're removing any basis on which you can rationally assert that people are equal.
Again, the easiest way out is to deny Premise #3 and say instead that according to an objective system of morality, homosexual marriage should be permitted.
1. It is either the case that people are equal or it is not the case that people are equal.
2. The claim "people are equal" can be true if and only if there is a reality unto which the claim can correspond.
3. There is no such reality.
4. The claim "people are equal" is not true.
_______________________
Therefore it is not the case that people are equal.
Examine the four premises of the argument. Premise #1 is undeniable, as it rests upon the Law of Non-Contradiction. You yourself are the person asserting Premise #3. Premise #4 follows undeniably from Premise #3.
The only disputable one is Premise #2, which is what most of this discussion has focused on. In order to say "people are equal", you need to provide supporting reasoning in order to argue that this equality actually exists. This is always accomplished via making objective claims about reality and morality that can be supported through reason.
When you say it's all a matter of personal preference and that no objective statements can be made, you're removing any basis on which you can rationally assert that people are equal.
Again, the easiest way out is to deny Premise #3 and say instead that according to an objective system of morality, homosexual marriage should be permitted.
And no, this is not some math I have made up myself; it's propositional logic.
Premise two is essentially claiming this: if people are actually equal, there must be some mind-independent (i.e. objective) reason for this. The reason cannot be a mere assertion of preference (e.g. "because I like equality" or "because I don't like inequality").
Why do you disagree with Premise #2?
Premise two is essentially claiming this: if people are actually equal, there must be some mind-independent (i.e. objective) reason for this. The reason cannot be a mere assertion of preference (e.g. "because I like equality" or "because I don't like inequality").
Why do you disagree with Premise #2?
Last edited:
If you think that is the case against homosexual marriage you're either grossly misinformed or constructing straw men. It is entirely possible to coherently assert that everyone is equal and be against homosexual marriage at the same time.
Oh, and many theories of jurisprudence state that one is able to apply mental faculties of reasoning in order to discover the intricacies of this moral reality - so nobody actually "decides" who is granted or denied certain things; rather, it already exists through Natural Law and is discovered through reasoning and logic.
Asking "who decides..." is like asking "who decides what the laws of physics are?" The answer? No human decides such a thing. They use their intelligence to discover them.
B
Batman007
Guest
I think that people are equal.
I'm not saying that this is fact. I'm not saying that objectively people are equal. Do I believe that? Yes. I see no real difference between two human beings, any two on the planet, whether it's the president or a homeless person. They are both human beings. That's all. Could there be some kind of higher being like a god that dictates that some people are better than others? Maybe. I doubt it, though. I see nothing telling me that people aren't equal so I'm going to assume they are.
You're argument is pointless, that's what I'm trying to tell you here. I'm not claiming to believe in equality because it's objectively true. You're right, something can only be definitely true if there's a way to measure it to an objective reality. I don't think that exists, which is why I don't think that anything is definitely true. This is what I, personally, believe.
Or, I guess I should say that it's impossible to know whether anything is true. Are things true? Yeah. But humans can't know this as fact. Again, that's just my theory. I don't know how many if anyone shares it.
I can't believe you're asking me to give you evidence that equality exists. It's man-made! It's an idea! There is no physical evidence for equality! It's a structure we as a society dictate! A social ranking! I can't hand you physical proof or research.
Sure you can think that everyone is equal and be against gay marriage. However, you're preventing someone from receiving and equal opportunity.
I'm not saying that this is fact. I'm not saying that objectively people are equal. Do I believe that? Yes. I see no real difference between two human beings, any two on the planet, whether it's the president or a homeless person. They are both human beings. That's all. Could there be some kind of higher being like a god that dictates that some people are better than others? Maybe. I doubt it, though. I see nothing telling me that people aren't equal so I'm going to assume they are.
You're argument is pointless, that's what I'm trying to tell you here. I'm not claiming to believe in equality because it's objectively true. You're right, something can only be definitely true if there's a way to measure it to an objective reality. I don't think that exists, which is why I don't think that anything is definitely true. This is what I, personally, believe.
Or, I guess I should say that it's impossible to know whether anything is true. Are things true? Yeah. But humans can't know this as fact. Again, that's just my theory. I don't know how many if anyone shares it.
I can't believe you're asking me to give you evidence that equality exists. It's man-made! It's an idea! There is no physical evidence for equality! It's a structure we as a society dictate! A social ranking! I can't hand you physical proof or research.
Sure you can think that everyone is equal and be against gay marriage. However, you're preventing someone from receiving and equal opportunity.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're conflating objectivity with "definitely true". Saying something is an objective claim about reality does not mean that claim is definitely true.
If I said "there is a man on the moon made of cheese", that is an objective claim about reality. It is either true or false, depending on whether or not their is a man on the moon who happens to be made of cheese (it's reasonable to say that there isn't).
If anything, subjective claims such as "my favourite colour is blue" or "I think blue is better than red" are always correct (unless you're lying about your favourite colour for some odd reason). Since you and you alone define what your favourite colour is, the reality to which your statement is compared is your own mind. Everyone has their own mind, hence the truth of the statements one is making are subjective.
However, the problem comes when we remove the initial part (such as "I think") of the statement. You make the subjective claim, for instance, that "I think law should reflect equality." That is a subjective claim that it is true, since you do indeed think that. When you say "law should reflect equality" it is no longer a subjective statement, but an objective claim about reality. That does not necessarily make it true.
Following the man-on-the-moon analogy, there is obviously an objective reality to which the claim can be compared - namely the moon itself and the supposed absence of the cheese-man. To deny the existence of objective morality would be akin to saying that the moon - or perhaps physical reality itself - doesn't exist. It makes the claim about the cheese-man not only false, but also nonsensical.
Of course it's difficult - or near-impossible - to determine what is definitely moral or immoral. That doesn't mean an objective morality exists, however; what we're saying is that if you want to argue rationally for gay marriage, acknowledgement of the moral reality is a necessary component of the argument.
If I said "there is a man on the moon made of cheese", that is an objective claim about reality. It is either true or false, depending on whether or not their is a man on the moon who happens to be made of cheese (it's reasonable to say that there isn't).
If anything, subjective claims such as "my favourite colour is blue" or "I think blue is better than red" are always correct (unless you're lying about your favourite colour for some odd reason). Since you and you alone define what your favourite colour is, the reality to which your statement is compared is your own mind. Everyone has their own mind, hence the truth of the statements one is making are subjective.
However, the problem comes when we remove the initial part (such as "I think") of the statement. You make the subjective claim, for instance, that "I think law should reflect equality." That is a subjective claim that it is true, since you do indeed think that. When you say "law should reflect equality" it is no longer a subjective statement, but an objective claim about reality. That does not necessarily make it true.
Following the man-on-the-moon analogy, there is obviously an objective reality to which the claim can be compared - namely the moon itself and the supposed absence of the cheese-man. To deny the existence of objective morality would be akin to saying that the moon - or perhaps physical reality itself - doesn't exist. It makes the claim about the cheese-man not only false, but also nonsensical.
Of course it's difficult - or near-impossible - to determine what is definitely moral or immoral. That doesn't mean an objective morality exists, however; what we're saying is that if you want to argue rationally for gay marriage, acknowledgement of the moral reality is a necessary component of the argument.
As for equality being a social construct rather than an objective moral ideal, that also undermines the case for gay marriage. Again, this is tyranny of the majority and an argument from popularity.
According to that idea, if our particular arbitrary social constructs say that gay people aren't equal then they aren't, and you're incorrect for saying that they are.
"Social norms say that gay people can't get married? Tough. Social norms established at Nuremberg say Jews aren't equal to other people? Cry me a river - social norms dictate what values we hold, and respecting Jews ain't one of 'em!"
According to that idea, if our particular arbitrary social constructs say that gay people aren't equal then they aren't, and you're incorrect for saying that they are.
"Social norms say that gay people can't get married? Tough. Social norms established at Nuremberg say Jews aren't equal to other people? Cry me a river - social norms dictate what values we hold, and respecting Jews ain't one of 'em!"
B
Batman007
Guest
I think what we have here is a debate between a nihilist and a realist. I think this is why we're having such a hard time finding common ground.
I don't believe in a moral reality. I don't think anything is either right nor wrong.
I don't believe in a moral reality. I don't think anything is either right nor wrong.
B
Batman007
Guest
Nothing is neither right nor wrong. If I were to go by your reasoning there would be no reason to vote on anything, to believe in anything, which sounds rather dismal. I know that it feels good to be able to get married to someone I love. I want others to feel that because I like people being happy. I like people to not be discriminated against because through observation I see that ultimately leads to fewer happy people.
I do what I can to improve the lives of those around me.
P
psychomom
Guest
If nothing is 'either right or wrong', why would you expect to be sent to prison if you took someone's life?
Where does your belief that killing another human deserves imprisonment come from?
What if killing someone makes me happy?
B
Batman007
Guest
Because you imposed on someone else's life. I believe that once you impose one someone's life and rights you are giving up some of your own. I'm not an anarchist. There are others I've met who think that people should have the right to murder, that there should be no laws and no government. Personally I think that would lead to a very poor living quality. I'm much happier in a world with police.
P
psychomom
Guest
Okay, so you appeal to the 'rights' of others.
That's fine.
But where do those rights come from?
Who decides what rights people have?
On what do they base their decisions?