Personal v Public

@divegeester said
think we have a different idea of what “metaphysical” means.

No one claims “men and women are equal”, they talk about “equality” of rights.

If we were to begin discussing the differences between gender, race, class, etc., and even got into topics like IQ, I think you would find that people insisted that what differences do exist are utterly irrelevant, and that even people with lower IQs, or who are naturally unathletic, etc., all have various features that balance things out, and make everything equal.

It is rare for it to be spoken of exclusively as a convention for equality in terms of rights, or equality before the law. You never hear people argue that there needs to be more women in the boardroom or [i]there must be more black Air Force pilots[/b] because it is simply their right to be as such, but it is always because it is portrayed as solely a byproduct of sexism/racism that there is currently an imbalanced result.

@philokalia said
If we were to begin discussing the differences between gender, race, class, etc., and even got into topics like IQ, I think you would find that people insisted that what differences do exist are utterly irrelevant, and that even people with lower IQs, or who are naturally unathletic, etc., all have various features that balance things out, and make everything equal.

It ...[text shortened]... it is portrayed as solely a byproduct of sexism/racism that there is currently an imbalanced result.

If you see what you are saying here as being on topic for this thread, can you link it to the question that this thread poses, which is in the second post on page 1?

@fmf said
If you see what you are saying here as being on topic for this thread, can you link it to the question that this thread poses, which is in the second post on page 1?

Sure: the difference between public and private morality has to be thought of differently.

The official narratives that are out there do not necessarily have some special status of immunity from criticism; they are not objectively more or less true than things people only believe which are now just considered "personal."

@fmf said
Personal v Public

I gave the thread this title in the hope that what is discussed might broaden out and touch upon other instances of where we do or don't want to see our personal principles or standards enshrined in laws that force everybody to conform to how we see the world.

Interesting....
Do you believe in objective morality?
Or is morality necessarily subjective.....

@philokalia said
Sure: the difference between public and private morality has to be thought of differently.

The official narratives that are out there do not necessarily have some special status of immunity from criticism; they are not objectively more or less true than things people only believe which are now just considered "personal."

OK. But can you link all this post content you are typing specifically to the question that this thread poses, which is in the second post on page 1?

@pianoman1 said
Interesting....
Do you believe in objective morality?
Or is morality necessarily subjective.....

The only "objective" aspect of morality that I can think of, off the top of my head, is where you have factual information about the stipulations of laws that purport to be rooted in morals, norms and values, and empirical information about the consequencesof people's actions where morality / law-breaking is perceived to be a factor..

That, along with maybe scientific polling data about what people perceive or claim to believe in when it comes to morality. That might throw up some objective facts.

Aside from those, I think our moral compasses help us to evaluate and synthesize our subjective views and standards - based on our character and experience - into what we each see as effective interactions with each other.

Religionists claiming that their "morality" is "objective", for example, because they think it originates from some God figure they happen to believe - in are operating entirely in the realm of subjectivity.

@pianoman1 said
Interesting....

Do you have an answer to the question in post 2 on page 1? One of my answers is in post 1.

@fmf said
Do you have an answer to the question in post 2 on page 1? One of my answers is in post 1.

My take on this: if we can agree that objective morality can only exist independent of the observer then, leaving aside the metaphysical jungle of God, in my view all morality must be subjective to an observer, therefore personal. For the smooth running of a society, however, a broad ground plan of acceptable moral norms has to be put into the public domain.
In answer to your question: no, there is no personal moral principle of mine that I would impose on anyone else. There are 7.8 billion different perspectives on this planet; what right do I have to impose my moral spectrum on anyone else. The human is nothing if deprived of choice!

@philokalia said
If we were to begin discussing the differences between gender, race, class, etc., and even got into topics like IQ, I think you would find that people insisted that what differences do exist are utterly irrelevant, and that even people with lower IQs, or who are naturally unathletic, etc., all have various features that balance things out, and make everything equal.

It ...[text shortened]... it is portrayed as solely a byproduct of sexism/racism that there is currently an imbalanced result.

My initial question to you was

“Could you provide a working example of a “metaphysical leap of faith” upon which a series of values would be based by a secular humanist state ?”

You replied with what was ostensibly four paragraphs of waffle about gender equality and faux projected assertions about sons being equal to fathers.

Now you are continuing to waffle with more on IQs. We aren’t “beginning to discuss the differences between gender, race, class, etc”. We are trying to get you to answer the question put to you.

@fmf said
If you see what you are saying here as being on topic for this thread, can you link it to the question that this thread poses, which is in the second post on page 1?

Exactly!

@pianoman1 said
In answer to your question: no, there is no personal moral principle of mine that I would impose on anyone else.

I see. The exception being, presumably, if the "anyone else" was your offspring as long as they were under your care or under your roof, right?

@pianoman1 said
There are 7.8 billion different perspectives on this planet; what right do I have to impose my moral spectrum on anyone else.

There is the right to vote for representatives who pass laws. It may be somewhat distant, diluted or indirect, and there may be checks on it - like a constitution - but that is arguably a way of imposing the implications of one's moral perspective on people who do not share it.

@fmf said
I see. The exception being, presumably, if the "anyone else" was your offspring as long as they were under your care or under your roof, right?

I did not “Impose” any moral imperative on my offspring. In my view an enlightened parent gives children choices. It’s really important for the child to learn through the decision making process. Heresy in today’s woke society!

@pianoman1 said
I did not “Impose” any moral imperative on my offspring. In my view an enlightened parent gives children choices. It’s really important for the child to learn through the decision making process. Heresy in today’s woke society!

How is what you said "Heresy in today’s woke society"?

@pianoman1 said
I did not “Impose” any moral imperative on my offspring. In my view an enlightened parent gives children choices. It’s really important for the child to learn through the decision making process.

So, as a parent, you tolerate what you see as morally unsound behaviour by your children if that is what they choose to do - as a result of their decision making process? Is that what you are saying?