Keeping it simple: Morality and values

[agnosticatheist]

It seems that often discussions and debates concerning morality get bogged down. I'm going to try to keep it simple here, and hopefully have some dialogue.

It seems that values play a large role in human living and human interaction. When it comes to morality, some people value certain moral rules, while others value other rules. Still others reject many different moral rules.

Here is the question for debate:

How does Person A convince Person B that Person B should value the same moral rules that Person A does?

For an example, consider two people:

Joe: He thinks there is nothing wrong with drinking alcoholic beverages, even to the point of intoxication.

Andrew: He thinks that drinking any type of alcoholic beverage, in any quantity, and in any context, is morally wrong.

How does Joe convince Andrew to share his position on alcoholic beverages?

How does Andrew convince Joe to share his position on alcoholic beverages?

[Artie]

You haven't provided any support to the bolded part, which is precisely the claim that I challenged you to support. Thus, I ask again, can you show that the allowance of arbitrary arrests is causing these societies to become more unstable?

In order to do that, you'd have to show me that (1) the sample societies are becoming more unstable and (2) the destabilization of the society is directly or indirectly caused by the allowance of arbitrary arrests in those states. Can you do that?

No I can't. I don't know of a single modern stable society where arbitrary arrests are the norm and doesn't cause instability. I know of many unstable societies where there are many violations of human rights including arbitrary arrests. But since it is impossible to single out one single right as a contributing factor to increased instability I guess you are right. When for example people say

"Societies in which human rights are respected are more stable and provide a better environment for business." https://www.unglobalcompact.org/aboutth ... iple1.html

they mean "Societies in which twenty-nine human rights are respected are more stable and provide a better environment for business. Arbitrary arrests do not influence the stability."

And when people say that a country should respect human rights because it would become more stable they simply forget to make an exception for arbitrary arrests as a contributing factor.

Congratulations. You have proven that I don't have scientific evidence that in an unstable society arbitrary arrests are a contributing factor to the instability or worsens the instability. Sorry for applying some common sense. You are perfectly correct. Common sense is not applicable as long as one can not confirm every single statement with scientific documentation when talking to you. Well done. You win. Excellent work. I stand corrected. From now on I won't say a word without having dug up some scientific evidence confirming what I say first. A good lesson. Thanks.

[instantc]

You haven't provided any support to the bolded part, which is precisely the claim that I challenged you to support. Thus, I ask again, can you show that the allowance of arbitrary arrests is causing these societies to become more unstable?

In order to do that, you'd have to show me that (1) the sample societies are becoming more unstable and (2) the destabilization of the society is directly or indirectly caused by the allowance of arbitrary arrests in those states. Can you do that?

No I can't. I don't know of a single modern stable society where arbitrary arrests are the norm and doesn't cause instability. I know of many unstable societies where there are many violations of human rights including arbitrary arrests. But since it is impossible to single out one single right as a contributing factor to increased instability I guess you are right. When for example people say

"Societies in which human rights are respected are more stable and provide a better environment for business." https://www.unglobalcompact.org/aboutth ... iple1.html

they mean "Societies in which twenty-nine human rights are respected are more stable and provide a better environment for business. Arbitrary arrests do not influence the stability."

And when people say that a country should respect human rights because it would become more stable they simply forget to make an exception for arbitrary arrests as a contributing factor.

Congratulations. You have proven that I don't have scientific evidence that in an unstable society arbitrary arrests are a contributing factor to the instability or worsens the instability. Sorry for applying some common sense. You are perfectly correct. Common sense is not applicable as long as one can not confirm every single statement with scientific documentation when talking to you. Well done. You win. Excellent work. I stand corrected. From now on I won't say a word without having dug up some scientific evidence confirming what I say first. A good lesson. Thanks.

You said "articles of the Declaration promote survival, so we call them moral". I picked a single article in order to test your claim. You couldn't even show me that the said prohibition promotes survival of the society let alone that that would be the very reason why we consider it to be morally good. At this point, your notion that moral actions can be equated with any actions that help us survive rests on sheer speculation.

[Artie]

You said "articles of the Declaration promote survival, so we call them moral".

You didn't provide any documentation or evidence proving that is exactly what I said. Quote post and line.

I picked a single article in order to test your claim.

I want documentation and evidence proving that you "picked a single article". Quote the single article from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and show that that single article and what you wrote in your post(s) have the exact same wording.

You couldn't even show me that the said prohibition

"Said prohibition"? Said where? What prohibition? Please be specific.

At this point, your notion that moral actions can be equated with any actions that help us survive rests on sheer speculation.

This is a positive statement. Provide documentation and evidence that my "notion that moral actions can be equated with any actions that help us survive rests on sheer speculation" or retract your statement. Show that there is absolutely nothing else but "sheer speculation" it can rest on.

[instantc]

You said "articles of the Declaration promote survival, so we call them moral".

You didn't provide any documentation or evidence proving that is exactly what I said. Quote post and line.

I picked a single article in order to test your claim.

I want documentation and evidence proving that you "picked a single article". Quote the single article from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and show that that single article and what you wrote in your post(s) have the exact same wording.

You couldn't even show me that the said prohibition

"Said prohibition"? Said where? What prohibition? Please be specific.

At this point, your notion that moral actions can be equated with any actions that help us survive rests on sheer speculation.

This is a positive statement. Provide documentation and evidence that my "notion that moral actions can be equated with any actions that help us survive rests on sheer speculation" or retract your statement. Show that there is absolutely nothing else but "sheer speculation" it can rest on.

Debating is a gentleman's game. The tactic that you are using is what Stephen Law labels as 'going nuclear' in his newest book. According to Law, it's usually used by theists when the foundation of their beliefs is threatened by a rational discussion. I am surprised that you, Artie, as a skeptic feel the need to resort to it.

[Artie]

The tactic that you are using is what Stephen Law labels as 'going nuclear' in his newest book. According to Law, it's usually used by theists when the foundation of their beliefs is threatened by a rational discussion. I am surprised that you, Artie, as a skeptic feel the need to resort to it.

What, you don't like your own debating tactics used against you? Boohoo. I am just requiring of you what you require of me. Now, "provide documentation and evidence that my "notion that moral actions can be equated with any actions that help us survive rests on sheer speculation".

[instantc]

The tactic that you are using is what Stephen Law labels as 'going nuclear' in his newest book. According to Law, it's usually used by theists when the foundation of their beliefs is threatened by a rational discussion. I am surprised that you, Artie, as a skeptic feel the need to resort to it.

What, you don't like your own debating tactics used against you? Boohoo. I am just requiring of you what you require of me. Now, "provide documentation and evidence that my "notion that moral actions can be equated with any actions that help us survive rests on sheer speculation".

By looking through this thread, any sensible person will notice that you haven't provided any support for the notion, apart from speculation. Therefore, it logically follows that within the limits of this thread, your assertion rests on sheer speculation.