Objective Moralism

The rules of preferred behaviour are not absolute, this is correct. Some people have a preference to be tortured, others have a preference to torture others, still others have a preference to torture themselves. But, overwhelmingly, the preferred behaviour of others in ordinary humans is consistent.

Even if you are taught to accept having money from you, or having your children taken from you, you will feel bad when it occurs. There is a natural instinct for preferred behaviour as well as an intellectual understanding of it.

Across religions fundamental morals are similar, all with a smattering of real morality, although most have many elements of falsehood.

You should not: steal, murder, rape, commit violent acts, or threaten.
These are the common 'morals', the common preferred behaviours, which exist throughout virtually every society in the world.

 

It doesn't matter that it is a specially trained group.

If something is immoral for one person to do then it must be immoral for all to do, otherwise it cannot be true.

If I got special training to be an atomic bomb specialist, does that give me the right to murder hundreds of millions of people in a nuclear inferno, just because I have 'special training'?

What about your child protection people when they go home at night. Do they retain the right to kidnap people when they take off their badge? What about when they go on holiday.

Do they have some fundamental difference which makes them no longer subject to human morality? Are they of a different species? Are they gods?

The answer to all of this of course is that the behavior of kidnap is immoral, it is unpreferred, it is wrong. There is no justification, ever, to forcibly remove someone and lock them up, unless that justification can be used by every man and woman in every situation anywhere in the world.

So, to expand this further. You are saying that: if one person does not approve of the way a child in another family is being raised or treated at any point in time (so this is a subjective view that this person has), then that person automatically gains the moral right to kidnap the child and do whatever he pleases with that child.

Obviously the above is absurd. It is not a preferred behaviour to kidnap children and thus it is immoral.

 

That is what the whole thread is about.

 

Those are not morals any more than claiming that magic is a law of physical science.

We must cease to call them 'morals' because they are not moral actions, they are universally un-preferred behavioural acts. You show this very fact by protesting the acts. Most societies, most people across the world protest these acts. Certainly the girl herself, and her family, protested these acts.

Stoning someone to death is not a moral act. Murder is not a moral act. Calling it a moral act is simply lying. It is no more a moral act than 'hydrogen turns into a frog at negative 300 degrees' is a physical law.

 

If the law is not understood by all then it is not the law; it is someone's rules which they are imposing on you at gun-point.

And who would choose the committee of unbiased people? Why can't I have a committee too? Why can't I place myself in the committee? If it is moral to have a committee of people, whom I believe are unbiased, that run around and kidnap children, then why is it immoral for me to have a committee which does that too?

I could elect myself as the only member of my committee, and, as I believe myself to be unbiased, I would then gain the moral authority to kidnap children, correct?

Again your argument fails because the actions that you suggest are 'moral' are not universally applicable, and therefore are not consistent, and therefore are not preferred human behaviour, and therefore are not moral.

 

Well I speak from the perspective and understanding of syllogistic truth; which is based on the ability of a statement or theory to correspond with the real world, with reality, in a meaningful and consistent manner. So I have already disproved your statement because I am not speaking from cultural bias, and it only takes one divergent person to disprove that statement.

It is not about 'disproving the science' it is about disproving your argument that it is relevant to this debate. Which have already done above.

I reject your premise, that 'what we say and how we say it is itself a reflection of our culture' as untrue in the field of empirical science and objective thought. Our actions, and decisions, and truth value, are governed by their coherence, consistency, and how they conform to, predict, and explain reality.

 

I seriously doubt her family found it moral. But, as I stated before, morality must be universally preferred, otherwise it is not morality. Clearly this action was not universally preferred and therefore was not moral.

The point you are attempting to make is irrelevant: People's beliefs about how they should treat one another change from society to society. But the actual preferred behaviour does not. People do not like being punched in the gut, for example. You find me one instance of a society that actually found 'being punched in the gut' to be a preferred behaviour, and therefore found 'not being punched in the gut' to be an unpreferred behaviour, and I will consider your argument.

 

Then it is not the law! The law is a common feeling that the entire society has about 'how just' an action is. The law is not a set of rules laid down by a dictator, or a dictatorial group.

Oh I see, so now it is moral to have a government. Aside from the obvious absurdity of this statement, let me perform the exact same set of arguments I have for every other proposition you have put forward:

If it is moral for you to elect a government, that can, in turn, elect a committee to kidnap children, then why is it immoral for me to setup my own government, say for my suburb, which elects a committee, in good faith (as I see it), which, in turn, creates a group which has the moral authority to kidnap children?

I could elect myself the government, I could be the only member of the government, and I could elect myself the only member of that committee, in good faith, then I could elect myself the only member of that 'child services agency', thus obtaining the moral authority to kidnap children.

Then I'd have the moral authority to run around and kidnap children, right?

Wrong! If its immoral for one person to do then it must be immoral for ANY person to do. How many times must I explain this to you?

I see, and who is to determine what is 'unbiased' and what is 'the correct training'? Who is to determine what is a drastic situation?

Must I spell it out for you? Your position on this is immoral, and it can never be moral, because it is inconsistent. In fact, why don't you look up the great evils of your CPS group in the US to see the real manifestation of the immorality of which I speak?

 

Sure, people evolve. Fortunately you will not be alive then. The laws of physics may abruptly change in 1000 years, but that possibility does not negate the validity of the existing laws.

These are derived from natural preferences. We have a natural preference to gain respect within our community. Thus preferred actions, which gain us respect, are moral and desirable actions to commit. The actual manifestation of gaining respect changes however, depending on your culture and your genetic heritage. If it is seen as shallow to be taking praise then obviously this becomes an undesired behaviour.

The fact that some people have different manifestations of preferred behaviour in their cultures does not void the argument that preferred behaviour exists. In fact, it further supports the argument for preferred behaviour. If you know that japanese people don't enjoy praise then you will respect that and not give them praise, thus you conform to their manifestation of preferred behaviour, and that, in itself, is due to your own manifestation of your preferred behaviour: to not make other people uncomfortable.

I hope that made sense to you.

 

There is nothing to understand because its already understood. Anyone who is divergent in the manner you speak of is a criminal, or at least a potential criminal.

Right, so why do a group of people called 'the government' have the right to impose themself on me. I never agreed to that. And if the imposition of unwanted rules on a group of people is all the justification needed to form you CPS group then why can't any other group impose unfair unjust rules on people and create their own CPS group? Why would that be less moral than the government doing it?

Oh I see. And if a criminal gang comes along to your shop and threatens to burn it down if you don't pay them protection money, you still have a choice because you can simply leave? The shop owner was there first, the criminal gang is the aggressor. So no, I should not have to leave my home and my country because a criminal gang moves in next door. And to assert that it is my free choice is to assert a fallacy. Because I did not ask for the aggression to be committed against me to begin with, therefore and choices I have stemming from that aggression are not made freely.

You now admit that your argument is immoral by asserting that only a small group of people can hold that 'moral' authority. As proven above and before if an action is moral for one person to perform, then it MUST be moral for every person to perform.

Who is to determine what the best results are. You cannot argue that 'the best results' or 'the best training' can be derived from logic. Because logically, as I have pointed out many times, the fundamental act of kidnapping children is immoral. Therefore if you were to derrive 'the best results' and 'the best training' from logic, your results would be 'leave the children with the family' and your training would be 'don't train them or even have a CPS to begin with'.

And that is an irrational position to hold. I cannot argue further with you because you have accepted the premise of my argument and rejected the conclusions. Until you can either provide a fault in my logic or accept that you are incorrect in holding this point of view there is no point in continuing this debate.

 

Then you must find fault in the below: