Trickle-Down Morality

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 671 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Trickle-Down Morality

Post #1

Post by Purple Knight »

People generally assume equality when it comes to moral questions: They assume that all [sentient]* entities are equal and that if one murders and it is wrong, then another one that murders is also wrong.

*probably add this, not entirely sure
TheGreatDebate wrote:I am just very curious as to why all the charges of “murderer,� “disgusting,� etc… are flying around. I assume you all are atheists? From what moral authority do you assign these terms from?
But this gem of a quote (referencing people calling the God of the Bible evil) I believe exposes the fact that underneath the surface, this is not the case.

If a government kills, for its own purposes, or to defend its ideology, it's war, not murder. If an individual person kills for these same reasons, it is.

I ask the question: Do you believe morality trickles down, or up, or in any other direction?

Or do you believe that higher moral authority equals more morally permissible actions?

Bonus question: If you're religious, and your answer was no, morality does not trickle down, how does this sit with the idea that one should imitate Jesus or some other figure? Wouldn't that mean that you definitely shouldn't try to do this, since [insert religious figure] had moral authority, and you don't, making the act you imitate potentially an evil one when you do it?

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 671 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Post #21

Post by Purple Knight »

The Tanager wrote:So, what do you say is the level of certainty needed? How do you judge that?
Off the top of my head I would say exactly the same burden of no reasonable doubt as is used in courts.

50% chance he's innocent is very reasonable doubt that he's guilty.
The Tanager wrote:Each of those answers is just as likely as the other (without considering anything beyond logical possibility), even if there are an infinite possibility of answers available.
I agree with that.
The Tanager wrote:If we phrase the question the way I have: are there different standards?, there are only two logically possible answers to that question. The variety of how they could be different does not put more probabilistic weight behind "there are different standards" versus "there are not different standards."
I can use your argument with a die with 20 sides.

I can copy and paste your argument to make it seem like the probability that I will roll a 1 is 1/2.

But wait, the probability that I will roll a 2 is also 1/2.

Okay, so far I guess that's okay, but holy spaceballs, the probability that I will roll a 3 is also 1/2. Blathering blatherscyte; now we've come up with a total probability of 3/2 (when it should equal 100%).

...Now we're getting into why each possibility should be equally likely, by default, and we probably shouldn't ask things like, "Will I roll a 1?" because, as I've shown, it can juke the issue unfairly.
The Tanager wrote:A and B are logically inconsistent, so they can't both be true. People could hold irrational beliefs together, sure, but that doesn't say much to our discussion. In this scenario, if one were confronted with these two groups, they would not word the standards in the way you do above (assuming the can think rationally). They would say that you can punch anyone that holds a "bad ideology" or that there is some other factor that allows one to punch the bad Nazi idealogue but not the bad black supremacist idealogue (perhaps the violence incited, perhaps one's personal emotional response, perhaps something else).
You're right, they wouldn't word it that way if they had these two issues in front of them at the same time, but take each issue separately (even when confronting a single person) and these are exactly the answers you get. The axioms literally shift, and they remain axioms.
The Tanager wrote:Regardless, how do you see this scenario supporting your claim here? I'm missing something.
If I see the standard change, and a moral person helping it do so, I can only conclude that people are indeed bound by different standards.

They don't seem to want to admit that, but I can only look at the evidence.

I'm basically a reformed racist. I'm trying to be 100% reformed. If we can just admit that the standard we apply to the black supremacist is simply more forgiving than the one applied to the white supremacist, simply because they are different people, then I happily agree and am cured.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Post #22

Post by The Tanager »

Purple Knight wrote:I can use your argument with a die with 20 sides.

I can copy and paste your argument to make it seem like the probability that I will roll a 1 is 1/2.

But wait, the probability that I will roll a 2 is also 1/2.

Okay, so far I guess that's okay, but holy spaceballs, the probability that I will roll a 3 is also 1/2. Blathering blatherscyte; now we've come up with a total probability of 3/2 (when it should equal 100%).

...Now we're getting into why each possibility should be equally likely, by default, and we probably shouldn't ask things like, "Will I roll a 1?" because, as I've shown, it can juke the issue unfairly.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you mean that you would pose it as "rolling a 1 versus not rolling a 1"? If so, the probability is not 1/2 because we have knowledge that extends beyond the logically possible answers to the binary question (i.e., we know there are 20 sides the die could land on and only 1 of them has a 1 on them). The probability of rolling a 1 is much less than of not rolling a 1 because of the extra information. This is not analogical to my claim unless you are assuming there are more "sides to the die" to change the probability. But if you do that, you have already juked the issue unfairly.
Purple Knight wrote:You're right, they wouldn't word it that way if they had these two issues in front of them at the same time, but take each issue separately (even when confronting a single person) and these are exactly the answers you get. The axioms literally shift, and they remain axioms.
The expression of the axiom shifts, but they don't truly hold both axioms as evidenced by their correction of expression when confronted with the contradiction in words. People are sometimes bad or sloppy at expressing their true beliefs. So what? They also don't live up to their own claimed standard but that is a different issue than this point.
Purple Knight wrote:If I see the standard change, and a moral person helping it do so, I can only conclude that people are indeed bound by different standards.
Not at all. You can certainly conclude that the person is inconsistent in their expression of their true beliefs.
Purple Knight wrote:They don't seem to want to admit that, but I can only look at the evidence.
But you even said that "if they had these two issues in front of them at the same time" that "they wouldn't word it that way". That is them admitting when confronted with their inconsistency. Unless you are talking about how we break our own stated moral codes?
Purple Knight wrote:I'm basically a reformed racist. I'm trying to be 100% reformed. If we can just admit that the standard we apply to the black supremacist is simply more forgiving than the one applied to the white supremacist, simply because they are different people, then I happily agree and am cured.
I am glad you have left that kind of view. Why does your full reformation depend on how other people act?

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 671 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Post #23

Post by Purple Knight »

The Tanager wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you mean that you would pose it as "rolling a 1 versus not rolling a 1"? If so, the probability is not 1/2 because we have knowledge that extends beyond the logically possible answers to the binary question (i.e., we know there are 20 sides the die could land on and only 1 of them has a 1 on them). The probability of rolling a 1 is much less than of not rolling a 1 because of the extra information.
This is why I say it's much less than 50% that we're all bound by the same standard. We have knowledge that any standard is possible, they are infinite, and any combination of people could be bound in any old which way.
The Tanager wrote:The expression of the axiom shifts, but they don't truly hold both axioms as evidenced by their correction of expression when confronted with the contradiction in words. People are sometimes bad or sloppy at expressing their true beliefs. So what? They also don't live up to their own claimed standard but that is a different issue than this point.
Well, what if they do live up to their standards? What if doublethink is actually the best thing since sliced bread? People try to cover for their doublethink but I question whether they even need to.
The Tanager wrote:Not at all. You can certainly conclude that the person is inconsistent in their expression of their true beliefs.
I could, but that would ultimately lead down a dark path I don't want to be on.
The Tanager wrote:But you even said that "if they had these two issues in front of them at the same time" that "they wouldn't word it that way". That is them admitting when confronted with their inconsistency.
And what's wrong with inconsistency? Nothing. The idea that morality must be consistent is a huge assumption.
The Tanager wrote:I am glad you have left that kind of view. Why does your full reformation depend on how other people act?
It just depends on my being able to reconcile exactly why others are so much more moral than I am. Once I understand, I'll just imitate them and be as good as they are.

I used to rail against people for having double standards, and I'm ready to stop doing that and just accept that the highest morality consists of lots of double standards. Punching a Nazi = good, punching a black supremacist = unthinkable.

I'm not going to whine and cry that it's a double standard. If it is a double standard, fine. If that's the way to be moral, fine. That's just what I'll do.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Post #24

Post by The Tanager »

Purple Knight wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you mean that you would pose it as "rolling a 1 versus not rolling a 1"? If so, the probability is not 1/2 because we have knowledge that extends beyond the logically possible answers to the binary question (i.e., we know there are 20 sides the die could land on and only 1 of them has a 1 on them). The probability of rolling a 1 is much less than of not rolling a 1 because of the extra information.
This is why I say it's much less than 50% that we're all bound by the same standard. We have knowledge that any standard is possible, they are infinite, and any combination of people could be bound in any old which way.
In the analogy, we have two logically possible answers to the question. Roll a 1, not roll a 1. For all we know, the die could have 2 sides or 20 sides or an infinite number of sides. If we don't know, then we have no idea what the probability of rolling a 1 is. We don't know that it is 1/20. It's not more likely that it's 1/20 then it is 1/2 or 1/1 or 1 out of a million. Each of those probabilities is just as likely true. Having knowledge that any probability is possible, that there are infinite possible probabilities tells us nothing about what the actual probability is. It does not lessen any of the probabilities, skewing the answer to rolling a 1 or not rolling it.

Likewise, only having the knowledge that there could be multiple standards tells us nothing about whether the actual probability is less than 50% that we're all bound by the same standard. That the probability could possibly be 33%, 25%, 20%, 1%, 0.00000000000000000000000000000000023%, does not make the probability of being bound by the same standard less than any other possible answer.
Purple Knight wrote:Well, what if they do live up to their standards? What if doublethink is actually the best thing since sliced bread? People try to cover for their doublethink but I question whether they even need to.
Why do you question it? Not the act of questioning, itself, but questioning the truth of something like the laws of logic (if I understood you correctly here).
Purple Knight wrote:
If I see the standard change, and a moral person helping it do so, I can only conclude that people are indeed bound by different standards.
Not at all. You can certainly conclude that the person is inconsistent in their expression of their true beliefs.
I could, but that would ultimately lead down a dark path I don't want to be on.
I think I'm missing something. You said that if the standard changes (I think this refers to something like one saying you can't punch anyone for their bad ideology and then, later, saying you can actually punch a Nazi) you can only conclude that people are bound by different standards.

Who does 'people' refer to here? The one saying the moral code or the ones being talked about in the moral code (the Nazi and the black supremacist)?
Purple Knight wrote:It just depends on my being able to reconcile exactly why others are so much more moral than I am. Once I understand, I'll just imitate them and be as good as they are.
So, them admitting that they are still racist means they are more moral than you are, when you think all equally bad ideologies should be treated equally?
Purple Knight wrote:I used to rail against people for having double standards, and I'm ready to stop doing that and just accept that the highest morality consists of lots of double standards. Punching a Nazi = good, punching a black supremacist = unthinkable.
I would say those might be two different things. First, I don't think the double standard of things like racism is the highest morality. Why should anyone see that as the highest morality?

Second, I wouldn't say it is good to rail against those that disagree with you, if "rail" is something other than intellectual critique, going more into yelling at them, getting violent, etc.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 671 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Post #25

Post by Purple Knight »

The Tanager wrote:In the analogy, we have two logically possible answers to the question. Roll a 1, not roll a 1. For all we know, the die could have 2 sides or 20 sides or an infinite number of sides. If we don't know, then we have no idea what the probability of rolling a 1 is. We don't know that it is 1/20. It's not more likely that it's 1/20 then it is 1/2 or 1/1 or 1 out of a million. Each of those probabilities is just as likely true.
Right, so I propose we take them all into account.
The Tanager wrote:Why do you question it? Not the act of questioning, itself, but questioning the truth of something like the laws of logic (if I understood you correctly here).
I'm now considering that logic might not apply to morality.
The Tanager wrote:I think I'm missing something. You said that if the standard changes (I think this refers to something like one saying you can't punch anyone for their bad ideology and then, later, saying you can actually punch a Nazi) you can only conclude that people are bound by different standards.
Correct. When it's the black supremacist, it does not matter what he thinks is permissible to do to white people. You can't punch him for his ideology. Ever.

When it's the white supremacist, you can indeed punch people for their ideology if it is sufficiently bad.

I'm not going to get angry about this anymore and I'm willing to just accept it.
The Tanager wrote:Who does 'people' refer to here? The one saying the moral code or the ones being talked about in the moral code (the Nazi and the black supremacist)?
The ones laying down the morals.
The Tanager wrote:So, them admitting that they are still racist means they are more moral than you are, when you think all equally bad ideologies should be treated equally?
I don't think they are racist, and I no longer think all bad ideologies should be treated equally. If I thought that, I would continue to be angry at those with the double standards and continue to believe that they were inconsistent, and therefore wrong.

I am now willing to accept that they are inconsistent and right.

I never yelled at anyone, but I did get pretty internally upset.

I got upset because there could be a blatant contradiction and those who held it simply wouldn't care, and no one cared that they didn't care.

Well, what if that black supremacist had an ideology every bit as bad as white supremacy? What if he called for people to be killed? Nope, still can't punch him.

I don't want to be on the losing side anymore. I want to be the most moral, someone who simply brushes off cries of contradiction.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Post #26

Post by The Tanager »

Purple Knight wrote:
In the analogy, we have two logically possible answers to the question. Roll a 1, not roll a 1. For all we know, the die could have 2 sides or 20 sides or an infinite number of sides. If we don't know, then we have no idea what the probability of rolling a 1 is. We don't know that it is 1/20. It's not more likely that it's 1/20 then it is 1/2 or 1/1 or 1 out of a million. Each of those probabilities is just as likely true.
Right, so I propose we take them all into account.
The point here seems to be that since there are more logically possible ways to get an answer of Y, this makes it more likely Y is the answer over X. I don't understand why that follows. Does this mean that you think theism is the default answer over atheism and the burden is on the atheist to prove theism false? There seem to be more logically possible ways theism plays out as the answer.
Purple Knight wrote:I'm now considering that logic might not apply to morality.
So, you think it applies to the rest of reality, but not morality?
Purple Knight wrote:
Who does 'people' refer to here? The one saying the moral code or the ones being talked about in the moral code (the Nazi and the black supremacist)?
The ones laying down the morals.
Okay, so I'm plugging this into your statement earlier: "If I see the standard change, and a moral person helping it do so, I can only include that [the ones laying down the morals] are indeed bound by different standards.

I don't see how the conclusion that person X has been objectively bound by two different moral standards is more reasonable than the conclusion that person X is acting/speaking inconsistently or wrongly. Or what am I still misunderstanding?
Purple Knight wrote:
So, them admitting that they are still racist means they are more moral than you are, when you think all equally bad ideologies should be treated equally?
I don't think they are racist
How do you define 'racism'?
Purple Knight wrote:and I no longer think all bad ideologies should be treated equally.
Why not?
Purple Knight wrote:I don't want to be on the losing side anymore. I want to be the most moral, someone who simply brushes off cries of contradiction.
Why is the inconsistent one the more moral one?

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 671 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Post #27

Post by Purple Knight »

The Tanager wrote:Does this mean that you think theism is the default answer over atheism and the burden is on the atheist to prove theism false? There seem to be more logically possible ways theism plays out as the answer.
If I thought there wasn't a good reason to prefer there being no god over there being a god, my argument would actually apply to theism and mean I thought that at least some god out of infinite gods was more likely than none at all, but it would really only apply if people made up regular people.

"I worship this entity called Chris. He wears a baseball cap. He was born with a cleft palate. He has the power to spit a loogie four meters."

Okay, yeah, Chris could easily exist. Chris is possible. People don't create these kinds of entities, however; they create mega-entities with OP abilities we've never seen before.
The Tanager wrote:So, you think it applies to the rest of reality, but not morality?
I'm considering that very seriously. I think it might be my unified field theory of morality.
The Tanager wrote:Okay, so I'm plugging this into your statement earlier: "If I see the standard change, and a moral person helping it do so, I can only include that [the ones laying down the morals] are indeed bound by different standards.

I don't see how the conclusion that person X has been objectively bound by two different moral standards is more reasonable than the conclusion that person X is acting/speaking inconsistently or wrongly. Or what am I still misunderstanding?
You're not wrong, because it's more than one person. I believe it's everyone but me and a few others, honestly.
The Tanager wrote:How do you define 'racism'?
I use the power plus privilege definition, though if white people lose power I will alter my definition so that still, only white people can be truly racist. That, or I will alter my definition of power.

I'm not interested in being consistent. I'm interested in being moral.
The Tanager wrote:
Purple Knight wrote:and I no longer think all bad ideologies should be treated equally.
Why not?
Because I have seen that it is permissible to punch a white supremacist because one may punch people for sufficiently bad ideologies, but that it is never acceptable to punch a black supremacist for their ideology because it is never acceptable to punch someone for their ideology, no matter what.
The Tanager wrote:Why is the inconsistent one the more moral one?
I have seen that it is. There's all the evidence in the world. Want some more articles?

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Post #28

Post by The Tanager »

Purple Knight wrote:If I thought there wasn't a good reason to prefer there being no god over there being a god, my argument would actually apply to theism and mean I thought that at least some god out of infinite gods was more likely than none at all, but it would really only apply if people made up regular people.

"I worship this entity called Chris. He wears a baseball cap. He was born with a cleft palate. He has the power to spit a loogie four meters."

Okay, yeah, Chris could easily exist. Chris is possible. People don't create these kinds of entities, however; they create mega-entities with OP abilities we've never seen before.
Why? These "mega-entities" aren't logically impossible. There are so many logically possible ways to answer the question with theism (Christianity, Mormonism, various Hindu philosophies, some forms of Buddhist thought, the Greek pantheon, etc.), but only one way with atheism (no god exists). From your principle this means theism should be the default position. Atheists would now bear the burden to rule out all the various theistic possibilities or prove atheism to remain rational.
Purple Knight wrote:
So, you think it applies to the rest of reality, but not morality?
I'm considering that very seriously. I think it might be my unified field theory of morality.
What is it about morality that makes you treat it differently from the rest of reality, both objective and subjective realities?
Purple Knight wrote:
Okay, so I'm plugging this into your statement earlier: "If I see the standard change, and a moral person helping it do so, I can only include that [the ones laying down the morals] are indeed bound by different standards.

I don't see how the conclusion that person X has been objectively bound by two different moral standards is more reasonable than the conclusion that person X is acting/speaking inconsistently or wrongly. Or what am I still misunderstanding?
You're not wrong, because it's more than one person. I believe it's everyone but me and a few others, honestly.
Why does the number of people matter? Why does a lot of people saying one thing at one time and a contradictory thing at another time point towards

(a) the same person being actually bound by different standards at different times rather than (b) the same person acting/speaking inconsistently or wrongly?
Purple Knight wrote:
How do you define 'racism'?
I use the power plus privilege definition, though if white people lose power I will alter my definition so that still, only white people can be truly racist. That, or I will alter my definition of power.

I'm not interested in being consistent. I'm interested in being moral.
So you are saying: those who are okay with punching those merely because of their race are not racist (i.e., they are not, what, using their power and privilege to do so?) I'm confused on your definition of racism. You may not care about consistency in morality, but we have to use terms in a specific way in a discussion and I need to know how you are using your terms.
Purple Knight wrote:
Purple Knight wrote:
and I no longer think all bad ideologies should be treated equally.
Why not?
Because I have seen that it is permissible to punch a white supremacist because one may punch people for sufficiently bad ideologies, but that it is never acceptable to punch a black supremacist for their ideology because it is never acceptable to punch someone for their ideology, no matter what.
So, "more moral" means: what some people have said? what the majority believe? something else?

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 671 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Post #29

Post by Purple Knight »

The Tanager wrote:Why? These "mega-entities" aren't logically impossible.
No, they're not, (to our knowledge) we've just never seen anything like them. In some ways I agree with this. With all the possible entities people have made up and called god, it's immensely likely that at least one of them exists... if they are possible.

In the Star Trek universe, I would say this holds perfectly because we know Q exists - a mega-entity with powers beyond our reckoning.

I simply doubt this is even possible in our universe.

Unicorns? Not so much. I don'd doubt unicorns. Maybe there are unicorns somewhere (minus any magical powers). And if there were hundreds of thousands of proposed kinds of unicorns? Infinitely likely in an infinite universe that they are somewhere out there.
The Tanager wrote:What is it about morality that makes you treat it differently from the rest of reality, both objective and subjective realities?
Because morality, in a sense, doesn't exist. Morality is defined entirely by the human mind, and it is neither logic nor math, potentially dispensing with any requirement to be consistent.
The Tanager wrote:Why does the number of people matter? Why does a lot of people saying one thing at one time and a contradictory thing at another time point towards?
I'll turn that around on you: Why does anything matter in terms of morality? How do we know murder is wrong?
The Tanager wrote:(a) the same person being actually bound by different standards at different times rather than (b) the same person acting/speaking inconsistently or wrongly?
I select (a) because so few people call them out on it. If it was this obviously wrong, I would think that instead of having pedestals, these people would be laughing stocks.
The Tanager wrote:So you are saying: those who are okay with punching those merely because of their race are not racist (i.e., they are not, what, using their power and privilege to do so?) I'm confused on your definition of racism. You may not care about consistency in morality, but we have to use terms in a specific way in a discussion and I need to know how you are using your terms.
https://www.pambazuka.org/governance/bl ... -be-racist

Racism is prejudice plus power as defined by the correct, sociological view, not the antiquated dictionary.

This means that only white people can be racist. I lost this debate one too many times, so I reformed. I changed my views. I argued that things should be fair. I lost. I not only lost, I was flattened. Refuted, with knockdown.
The Tanager wrote:So, "more moral" means: what some people have said? what the majority believe? something else?
If everyone or almost everyone believes something about morality I hardly think it can be wrong. But I'm also looking at second-tier responses to what people say, rather than just what they say. Flat contradictions wouldn't get nothing but exaltation unless flat contradictions were permissible. It would be just too easy to refute them.

If everyone believes they have pink cats, when in fact pink cats don't exist and some of them don't have any cats, they can be wrong. These sorts of statements describe the world. Moral statements only speak to what goes on inside the human mind.

Just as you can have a mental disorder if you don't think like the rest, surely you can also have a mental disorder if your morality is that far off from the rest. The latter has a specific name: Evil.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Post #30

Post by The Tanager »

Purple Knight wrote:No, they're not, (to our knowledge) we've just never seen anything like them. In some ways I agree with this. With all the possible entities people have made up and called god, it's immensely likely that at least one of them exists... if they are possible.

In the Star Trek universe, I would say this holds perfectly because we know Q exists - a mega-entity with powers beyond our reckoning.

I simply doubt this is even possible in our universe.
What evidence causes you to doubt this is even possible?
Purple Knight wrote:Because morality, in a sense, doesn't exist. Morality is defined entirely by the human mind, and it is neither logic nor math, potentially dispensing with any requirement to be consistent.
But other human inventions, such as made-up stories, made-up creatures, etc. are still overwhelmingly logical versus illogical. Why side with the very few examples over the majority here, especially when you are all about following the majority in (1) logically possible ways to get a specific answer to a binary question and (2) what is moral?
Purple Knight wrote:
Why does the number of people matter? Why does a lot of people saying one thing at one time and a contradictory thing at another time point towards

(a) the same person being actually bound by different standards at different times rather than (b) the same person acting/speaking inconsistently or wrongly?
I'll turn that around on you: Why does anything matter in terms of morality? How do we know murder is wrong?
Whatever my answer is to that, that is not a way for you to support your claim here. It is not relevant to my claim here. My claim here is that the number of people saying X doesn't support (a) or (b) more than the other. You claim it supports (a) over (b), so explain to me how it does so.

Now, I'm always willing to talk about my views and offer my support for that view, but not as a way for you to get out of supporting the claims you have made. I think the only plausible reason for thinking murder is objectively wrong is if one believes God exists. I think there are good reasons to believe God does exist. I'm not sure you want this conversation to turn into that one, though. But let me know if you do.
Purple Knight wrote:I select (a) because so few people call them out on it. If it was this obviously wrong, I would think that instead of having pedestals, these people would be laughing stocks.
So, since few people call out these prejudiced people...therefore...(a)? Why? Maybe they are cowards. Maybe they never have to deal with these issues. Maybe they think it such a small segment of the population that it's not worth even laughing at their claims.
Purple Knight wrote:Racism is prejudice plus power as defined by the correct, sociological view, not the antiquated dictionary.

This means that only white people can be racist. I lost this debate one too many times, so I reformed. I changed my views. I argued that things should be fair. I lost. I not only lost, I was flattened. Refuted, with knockdown.
No, it means that only those who are in power can be racist, whatever their race. The article was arguing that black people can't be racist because they don't have the power necessary to control society in prejudicial ways.
Purple Knight wrote:If everyone or almost everyone believes something about morality I hardly think it can be wrong.
Why not? If everyone believed the earth was flat, could they be wrong?
Purple Knight wrote:Flat contradictions wouldn't get nothing but exaltation unless flat contradictions were permissible. It would be just too easy to refute them.
But they don't get exalted. They do get refuted (or simply ignored). That's why when the people are confronted with the flat contradiction they correct their previous formulation or clarify how they were using specific terms.

Who actually maintains that Nazi and black supremacist ideologies are both bad and that you can punch a Nazi racist or a prejudiced Nazi because of that bad ideology, but not a Black racist or a prejudiced African-American in spite of their equally bad ideology in the same breath? It seems to me that you are taking bits and pieces of things and piecing together a claim that no one really makes. Even the punch a Nazi article doesn't make that claim. It only talks about the ethics of punching a Nazi. If the author was asked if you should punch a Black supremacist, then she would either say (1) yes, if it seeks the same deadly ends Nazism seeks or (2) no, because while she may disagree with it, it is not as dangerous as Nazism.

Post Reply