Check this dude out. Drink him in: the scrawny chicken neck, the leering eyes, the oddly bifurcated chin-butt. Mainly it's the leering eyes, though. I mean, he looks like he's scoping out an underage girl right there in the courtroom, while everyone is waiting for the judge to emerge from his chambers. When parents talk to their kids about not speaking to strangers, this is exactly the kind of man they mean.
And yet, this man ran a fringe cult of Mormon separatists who practiced a virtually slave-like form of polygamy in which men north of 50 traded teenage brides like baseball cards, with the only thing invalidating that analogy being that one doesn't fuck baseball cards. How, I wonder, does the cult-follower mind develop? With all of these wacko groups you see, they seem to have a leader — whether Jeffs, or David Koresh (who rarely indulged in the habit of bathing, yet managed to get all his male followers to hand over their wives to him), or Jim Jones — who, to anyone on the outside with a rational brain, is clearly a bad, creepy dude at first sight. How is it that these people cannot see what must be obvious to anyone else? It saddens me to imagine a mind so confused and dysfunctional in its irrationalism, that the person possessing it will gravitate towards any manipulative, sick weirdo in the hopes of finding some peace and direction in their lives.
I'll be too glad for words when this Jeffs perv is put away. Let's hope it's for the rest of his born days.
Why do you care what this bozo has done? Do you personally believe polygamy is wrong besides being against the law? Well, I guess he really hasn't committed polygamy because he only married one woman, but having said that, do you believe that what he did was wrong, and if you do, why? By what authority and objective standard, and why should I care?
ReplyDeleteThis isn't consensual polygamy between legal adults, which I would have no problem with legalizing. It's grown men running an isolationist, fringe religious cult whose followers are not allowed basic freedoms, whose kids do not receive proper education in order to make them more compliant, and whose leaders treat underage girls like property, not human beings, by passing them around like shared sex toys. Only a complete sociopath would not find the inherent wrongness of that self-evident.
ReplyDeleteMartin Wagner said...
ReplyDelete"This isn't consensual polygamy between legal adults, which I would have no problem with legalizing. It's grown men running an isolationist, fringe religious cult whose followers are not allowed basic freedoms, whose kids do not receive proper education in order to make them more compliant, and whose leaders treat underage girls like property, not human beings, by passing them around like shared sex toys. Only a complete sociopath would not find the inherent wrongness of that self-evident."
Yeah,
I agree with you on that. Should the parents of these young girls be held accountable? After all, they are subjecting their daughters to engage in this activity.
I was just wondering what objective standard of truth that you come to arrive at the conclusion that what these cultist are doing is wrong. If you say because it is harmful, then well, I'm sure the majority of these brainwashed people would disagree, they think it will make them gods one day. The moral wrong and right in this situation is relative and arbitrary.
I'm curious why there has to be an "objective" moral reason to condemn anything? Why can't I condemn it based on my personal evaluation of the implications for my society and the legal code of my community or nation? In which case--based on the very subjective, but mutually agreed-upon, U.S. Constitutional basis, this should be condemned as being against basic human rights (legally endowed by humans upon other humans in this nation).
ReplyDeleteIf I lived in another culture, I might think otherwise. Admitted. But I live in the U.S. and support constitutional law, because it stands between us and anarchy--which I do not desire. And, tainted as I am by my upbringing in the U.S., the Constitution seems to be a reasonable document by which to establish government and law. Not the only one, for sure--but one of many that I'm OK with.
If you say because it is harmful, then well, I'm sure the majority of these brainwashed people would disagree, they think it will make them gods one day.
ReplyDeleteWell, just because they think so doesn't mean it will happen. A heroin addict may genuinely believe he's happy while he's high, but the destructive toll he's taking on his mind and health are a matter of fact.
I appreciate someone coming aboard to play devil's advocate here, but really, the above seems simply to be a variant of the "appeal to popularity" fallacy.
Just because the majority of people want to do a bad thing doesn't make the bad thing right; cue obligatory Third Reich comparisons. And in any event, I know at least one group of people within that cult who would not agree with your assertion that the right and wrong of this issue is arbitrary and without basis in objective reality: the girls themselves, who have personally testified to what a painful experience it was being forced into marriage against their wills.
How you can claim that it's an "arbitrary" moral question whether or not to force someone against her will into a marriage/sexual relationship is, quite honestly, stupefying.
Since you stated that you agreed with me that it was wrong to treat little girls like sex toys, then answer your question for yourself: what objective standard of truth do you use to come to the conclusion that what these cultists are doing is wrong? Clearly there's a fundamental notion we all possess of proper and improper ways for human beings to conduct sexual relationships; you can argue that these are influenced by society and culture, but so what? That doesn't weaken the moral position, if it can be demonstrated that societal norms vis-a-vis marriage and sex have been shown to work more often than not historically. While there are valid arguments that those norms could be modified in some ways, without damaging the functional framework of marriage's role in our culture (legalizing gay marriage, for instance), modifications are obviously not beneficial in other ways (eg: marriages in which one partner is below the legal age of consent, and being forced into the arrangement against her will into the bargain).
tracie said...
ReplyDelete"I'm curious why there has to be an "objective" moral reason to condemn anything? Why can't I condemn it based on my personal evaluation of the implications for my society and the legal code of my community or nation? In which case--based on the very subjective, but mutually agreed-upon, U.S. Constitutional basis, this should be condemned as being against basic human rights (legally endowed by humans upon other humans in this nation)."
A lot of I's and my's going on here. If you don't believe in objective truth then I guess it's subjective. It's just based on personal whims and preferences. In other words, someone can easily say to you who cares what you say is truth because my truth is different.
As far as the U.S. Constitution, who I happen to be a huge fan of, advocates general rights and regulations. I am more interested in understanding where you think these regulations and rights that the Deistic framers wrote derive from?
Aside from established law, do you *believe* that murder and rape are wrong?
"If I lived in another culture, I might think otherwise."
What about people in your culture who think otherwise? How can you push your moral relativity upon them? They might disagree with you, why should they care what you believe?
Admitted. But I live in the U.S. and support constitutional law, because it stands between us and anarchy--which I do not desire. And, tainted as I am by my upbringing in the U.S.,
Huah? What don't you like about form of government in the U.S. ? Would you rather live in Iran? How about N. Korea?
the Constitution seems to be a reasonable document by which to establish government and law. Not the only one, for sure--but one of many that I'm OK with."
Yeah, well, what if someone disagrees with you? After all, it's subjective. Why should anyone care what you believe?
Martin Wagner said...
ReplyDelete"Just because the majority of people want to do a bad thing doesn't make the bad thing right; cue obligatory Third Reich comparisons. And in any event, I know at least one group of people within that cult who would not agree with your assertion that the right and wrong of this issue is arbitrary and without basis in objective reality: the girls themselves, who have personally testified to what a painful experience it was being forced into marriage against their wills."
"How you can claim that it's an "arbitrary" moral question whether or not to force someone against her will into a marriage/sexual relationship is, quite honestly, stupefying."
I never said it was arbitrary, I wanted to know why it isn't arbritrary according to your world view?
Since you stated that you agreed with me that it was wrong to treat little girls like sex toys, then answer your question for yourself: what objective standard of truth do you use to come to the conclusion that what these cultists are doing is wrong?"
Well, now your begging the question, but since you asked I'll tell you. I presuppose that the Bible is the objective standard. This behavior is clearly wrong according to Bible. Now what about your objective standard? (Your the one making the assertion of what's right and wrong) If you say that you don't have one, then who cares what you believe, your standard is subjective. If you say that there is objective truth, I'd like to know where it originates and how you account for it?
Clearly there's a fundamental notion we all possess of proper and improper ways for human beings to conduct sexual relationships;
Yeah, where does this originate? Isn't this subjective according to your world view?
you can argue that these are influenced by society and culture, but so what? That doesn't weaken the moral position, if it can be demonstrated that societal norms vis-a-vis marriage and sex have been shown to work more often than not historically. While there are valid arguments that those norms could be modified in some ways, without damaging the functional framework of marriage's role in our culture (legalizing gay marriage, for instance), modifications are obviously not beneficial in other ways (eg: marriages in which one partner is below the legal age of consent, and being forced into the arrangement against her will into the bargain
You mentioned gay marriage which is still illegal everywhere but MA I think, but I'm sure that could possible change soon. Just like sodomy itself was illegal in most states up until recently.
But I wonder how you can possitively assert something is wrong or right according to your world view?
I'll ask you what I asked Tracie. Do you believe murder and rape is wrong? If you say yes then how can you assert this position from a morally relative position?
Anonymous: I thought responding to your questions deserved its own post, so I wrote one.
ReplyDelete>A lot of I's and my's going on here. If you don't believe in objective truth then I guess it's subjective.
ReplyDeleteI've never seen objective truth. Have you? Even a Xian will say that truth comes "from god"--so they even have a subjective standard: "What god says." Why? Uh, because god said it? What makes you think objective truth even actually exists? Objective would mean starting out without basis. Since any basis begs the question: Why start with this basis? A decision must be made about acceptable behavior if we are to live in groups--and, luckily, we have a very natural decision maker when it comes to governing groups. Is it objective? Not by a mile. But it works quite successfully.
>It's just based on personal whims and preferences. In other words, someone can easily say to you who cares what you say is truth because my truth is different.
Your first sentence is incorrect. Your second sentence is correct. I have evolved into a creature with a lot of genetic presets as a social animal. These are not just "whims" and "preferences"; they are behaviors and mindsets that are evident in all social animals--dogs, wolves, chimps, lions, people. They are still "subjective"--since solitary animals do not share these traits as strongly as social animals. I am a product of my evolutionary genetics. But you are correct, that anyone can "not care" what I think or say about X, and can feel differently about it. That doesn't bother me at all.
We clearly see in nature that social animals successfully govern themselves via group consensus. Groups inflict punishments on "wrong doers" (wrong doing is determined by the group) and have hierarchies and accepted/rewarded behaviors. It's as natural to people as to wolves. What gives them the "right"? They don't need any "right." But they create the very real "ability" via group consensus. Since we are group animals, what works out for the group is generally also good for the individual--"generally" being the key word. It will not always make all individuals happy. Due to our evolutionary biology, we _will_ gravitate to one another in social groups. Due to our evolutionary biology, we _will_ determine what is right and wrong behavior based on our group consensus and group benefit and detriment. Due to our evolutionary biology, we _will_ protect our personal welfare (which generally means supporting the group welfare--since our personal survival is dependent on the larger social group).
In the U.S., we do this in the form of democracy--not the only way to do it, but one way; it's simply the way our forefathers chose, and we have modified it to suit our current state of existence--with regard to resources and what we will tolerate with regard to government control and human treatment.
>As far as the U.S. Constitution, who I happen to be a huge fan of, advocates general rights and regulations. I am more interested in understanding where you think these regulations and rights that the Deistic framers wrote derive from?
From the deistic farmers themselves. Just because they believe in a deity doesn't make their decisions divine. If they believed in elves and came up with good ideas, I wouldn't attribute it to the elves.
>Aside from established law, do you *believe* that murder and rape are wrong?
As social creatures, I believe that just about any of us would be able to buy into in whatever works for our society. I think people give themselves too much credit when they take their current moral and social settings and say that they'd have believed in these things regardless of the time and conditions in which they were raised. History simply fails to bear that out. In social settings, murder and rape are not generally conducive to social benefit. They do not promote prosperity within a group. If they did, we'd see them as "good" things--and when we created our gods, they'd probably promote murder and rape.
In fact, the Bible DOES promote murder and rape--because it WAS beneficial to the Hebrews at one time. It also promotes slavery, because THAT was also beneficial to the Hebrews at one time. When society and times change, our inherent need to interact for the social good--the group benefit--requires our ideas to change. So, now Xians just disregard the parts of the Bible that are now outdated due to the current moral climate. But if murder and rape were still beneficial, I'm sure Xians would still be promoting Jehovah's instructions. As it is, they have to ignore Jesus' New Testament support of slavery.
Our deist forefathers, for example, owned slaves. If I was living back then, I'd likely not have thought too much about it. Living today, I find it to be unacceptable.
>What about people in your culture who think otherwise? How can you push your moral relativity upon them? They might disagree with you, why should they care what you believe?
They should care what the law dictates. Dissent is allowed. In fact, our government offers three solutions to dissent:
1. Do what you want, even if it's illegal, and risk getting caught and punished.
2. Work to raise public awareness about your beliefs and try to get the laws changed--because our system is flexible and allows for change.
3. Move to a society that accepts your views and doesn't threaten you for practicing what you believe.
I don't see this as problematic. The subject of this blog chose option 1. Now he's in court. He can now attempt option 2.
I'm at a loss as to how much more lenient a culture could be with regard to dissenting behavior. They could have gone for legal social change--but they didn't. That was their informed decision. They weren't unaware of the three points above I just listed.
I don't hoist my morality onto anyone. I support a society that is flexible. If they can show their behavior is not detrimental, I'm all for hearing them out. But if society, via the courts, decides that they can't make a compelling argument to support that their behavior is not problematic to the society, then they have to face society's judgment. I have no problem with this system whatsoever.
>>Admitted. But I live in the U.S. and support constitutional law, because it stands between us and anarchy--which I do not desire. And, tainted as I am by my upbringing in the U.S.,
>Huah? What don't you like about form of government in the U.S. ? Would you rather live in Iran? How about N. Korea?
I'm not sure where I said above that I don't like the US form of government. Can you please clarify where you're reading that? In fact, if you read my statement above, I said I "support constitutional law." Just to guess, when I said "tainted," I meant to impart that I'm raised in this system, and so socialized into it. I'm partial due to upbringing. And I acknowledge that I'm not claiming impartiality in my ideas about my own government. Maybe you misunderstood that?
>>the Constitution seems to be a reasonable document by which to establish government and law. Not the only one, for sure--but one of many that I'm OK with."
>Yeah, well, what if someone disagrees with you? After all, it's subjective. Why should anyone care what you believe?
They shouldn't care what I believe. But if they don't want to face social repercussions, they better care what society thinks. Subjective? You bet. Fair? That's your call. But it's the way social animals interact in reality. If a person wants the benefits of living in a social group, then there will be social rules to ensure we all play nice together. If they can't abide the rules, there is recourse--and that's up to the individual to choose. But whatever any of us chooses, we have to be ready to face the consequences of our actions within a social environment.
Sorry for the late addition--but just to clear up something that may be confusing this discussion: morality is not the same thing as societal regulation (law). Morality is a personal sense of "right" and "wrong" determined by the individual (hopefully) via reason but sometimes via emotion. This may/may not align with regional laws and regulations.
ReplyDeleteJust because the two sometimes are in agreement does not mean we should indentify these two very different things as the same item. I subjectively approve of subjective social regulations based on group welfare, because it benefits me and others. But my morality--which is also subjective--I don't really care who agrees with/accepts it or not.
When morality and laws conflict, then people have decisions to make. But social rules are about group welfare--"is this most beneficial for society's welfare"? And morality is just about how I judge my own behavior--"do I feel it is it positive for me to do/not do X"? Everyone can have their own morality--and it can contain anything--even the most mostrous ideology. I don't care. But if they act out their moral ideals, social regulation will kick in to either allow or oppose them.
And I have no problem with this--for reasons I've listed earlier.
I wanted to add a detail to Tracie's reply, to see if she agrees with me on one particular. Tracie says: I've never seen objective truth. Have you?
ReplyDeleteI think objective truth exists in a "the sun rises in the east" and "2 + 2 = 4" variety. What Anonymous is getting at though — and I see Tracie has noticed it as well — is whether or not there is an objective moral truth, which Christians like to call moral absolutes, the idea that there are inviolable moral precepts that apply without question in all instances, across all times, and which are simply given to us by divine fiat. This belief is demonstrably false and should be obviously so to anyone who actually reads through the Bible and sees God doing all manner of things which are entirely morally reprehensible by our standards today.
For instance, the whole Lot's-daughters-incest thing; if there is an "objective" moral "truth" that declares incest to be unacceptable, why wasn't it unacceptable then? If moral absolutes exist, then a thing is either always right or always wrong, regardless of whether or not God is the one doing or advocating it. Once you start saying, "Well, moral absolutes exist, but God can do whatever he wants because he's God," you're arguing an untenable, contradictory position and you've jumped into that scary pool of moral relativism with both feet.
Yes, I would differentiate between "the sun rises in the East" and "It's always wrong to have premarital sex." And you are correct, I was addressing the "morality" context that I believe the anonymous poster has set up.
ReplyDeleteWhen I question "objective" morality, I only mean to indicate the following as applies to social regulations and how we can "impose" them on others:
1. We won't tolerate murder.
1b. Why not?
2. Because it's disruptive to social order.
2b. Why do we need social order?
3. Because it helps to ensure our welfare--the welfare of the society at large, and my own.
3b. Why is the social welfare important?
4. Because I value it (subjective).
I don't mind saying: From an evolutionary standpoint, survival is valuable to me--as a creature with survival instincts. So, I work from that _subjective_ base when determining what is best for me and my society.
I've had discussions that ask whether evolutionary reaction can be used as an "objective" basis--and that's arguable. I'm OK saying, "Let's call it subjective"--if for no other reason than to just proceed with the argument. OK, it's "subjective." Is there a problem with it? Subjective or Objective, it's reasonable to me and other social creatures. And it works to ensure group survival. Anonymous has failed to offer any other, better "objective" (OR "subjective") alternative.
If X-individual has a problem with it, it may seem unfair, but no less _true_, that X-individual is the one with the problem. And he must resolve it with society in some way (I listed 3 possible methods of addressing such conflict between the individual and society previously)--IF X values the benefits of living within a social framework and wants to stay in society. It's a social contract--just like Socrates described: If you accept social benefits you must be willing to contend with social regulations.
I don't understand anonymous' fixation with the reality that it's not "objective." It's reasonable. It works. Call it "subjective"/"objective"--whatever anyone would like. It doesn't really seem relevant to me if society's rules are based on a subjective basis such as: "we value our welfare" vs. what-else-I-have-no-idea. That's perfectly OK with me. I don't see how it's somehow problematic that it comes from a group subjective social consensus. Always has, always will (as far as I can see). That's simply the reality of how social animals interact.
So, I really don't know what anonymous is describing with "objective" morality. What would that even BE? A morality based on nothing--on no personal value? Once I select a value or "thing" upon which to base it--it's automatically subjective to "me" and my values and beliefs--even if that "thing" upon which I base it is a god or self-preservation.