Israel Folau has Wallabies contract terminated

[Cosmo Kramer]

Interesting analogy, but that's a bit of a stretch. A viewpoint or belief can be fixed and inflexible without being objective. To go back to your fruit analogy, a lot of people might say "lemon is gross", or something similar. The framing of their comment as an objective statement doesn't change its subjectivity. If morality was objective, we would all share the same values and beliefs about right and wrong. To become an objective fact, a belief has to be proven and objective statements usually deal only with evidence, not emotions.

I get where you are coming from, Utility Half, but at the same time, Bulldogfan1 makes a fair point.

Moral objectivism is the view that there exist moral facts that are true regardless of one’s opinion on them. Moral subjectivism is the view that there are no objectively true moral facts – only one’s personal subjective opinion. Perhaps many people share the same opinion, but it gives it no higher objective validity to one view over another. These are both different to moral absolutism and relativism.

Be careful not to equivocate with your usage of the word ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ in your extension of the lemon example. Its not about how one frames the moral proposition, it’s about the meta status of that claim.

The mere fact that there is disagreement over supposed facts doesn’t mean that there is no objective answer or fact, just like the fact children might answer different to a math problem doesn't mean there's no correct or true answer. Objectivity in the case in morality doesn’t deny people have subjective opinions; rather, it is simply that a standard exists independent of opinion and holds true even if everyone believed it were false.

And to your other point, it seems to me that a fact’s being proven isn’t what makes it objective. Rather, our proving it is what let’s us know it is objectively true. Regardless, in the case of moral right and wrong, it would be a category mistake to demand some sort of empirical evidence for moral propositions. What’s required is a valid and sound logical deduction based on almost undeniable premises. There’s a long rich philosophical tradition of just that, in contrast to the philosophical traditions of subjectivity and relativism.

I guess the question is ultimately that, when you are condemning certain acts, are you merely saying, “this goes against my personal subjective opinion”, or do you speak and act as though that person has committed something graver than that, and broken a real standard or law?

 

[Dawgfather]

Probably because the other perceived sins he mentioned did not represent a stigmatised and frequently demonised minority...... liars for example....Folau is one himself....

https://www.sportingnews.com/au/rug...-of-conduct-hearing/duyf4sljvpfz1o12011v9q8uv

Folau knew what he was doing and actually said he'd walk away in the future, if necessary. I hope now that this little piece of hypocrisy has been pointed out to him, he will withdraw any objections to the ARU's decision and walk away. He'll get by without his "job"....it's not like he'll be lining up at Centrelink.

The creation of victim groups by modern society is really just the weaponisation of particular groups to further political interests. Yes gay people have been treated poorly historically (however, as a general rule I don't think gay people have it any worse or any better than any one else in current Australian society).

I do agree that everyone is flawed and Folau is know difference. But I personally admire the part of him that is strong enough to stand up and speak about what he believes in, even though it results in public shaming and the potential loss of millions of dollars.

 

[Wahesh]

The creation of victim groups by modern society is really just the weaponisation of particular groups to further political interests. Yes gay people have been treated poorly historically (however, as a general rule I don't think gay people have it any worse or any better than any one else in current Australian society).

I do agree that everyone is flawed and Folau is know difference. But I personally admire the part of him that is strong enough to stand up and speak about what he believes in, even though it results in public shaming and the potential loss of millions of dollars.

Israel lives by the same philosophies many other people (myself included) live by, and that is simply Canon Law over Country Law. What that means is that we put our faith first, so, regardless of what the law of the land is, Canon Law will always, ALWAYS, be what we live by.

Thankfully here in Australia, the Canon Law does not intersect with and of our nations laws (for me personally at least). So while gay marriage maybe legal here, it is not legal in Canon Law, however doesn't affect me either because I'm not gay.

In some African countries, it is legal to rape a woman, however, this is forbidden in Canon Law, meaning even though it is legal in that country, if I were there, I wouldn't do it because it's against my religion (and also because I'm not a Karmichael of a person) etc...

 

[bulldogfan1]

Interesting analogy, but that's a bit of a stretch. A viewpoint or belief can be fixed and inflexible without being objective. To go back to your fruit analogy, a lot of people might say "lemon is gross", or something similar. The framing of their comment as an objective statement doesn't change its subjectivity. If morality was objective, we would all share the same values and beliefs about right and wrong. To become an objective fact, a belief has to be proven and objective statements usually deal only with evidence, not emotions.

The shape of the earth is an objective fact.
I say the earth is flat, you say it is spherical in shape.
You will tell me i am wrong, not because of your personal opinion, taste and preference, but you will refer to somethig outside and beyond both of us, that is, the shape of the earth and show that i am wrong and you are right.

Taste in fruit is subjective
I say lemon tastes nice, you say lemon tastes gross. Are you going to say i am wrong in saying it tastes nice?
Well, unlike the example of the shape of the earth, you cannot, because you have nothing outside beyond us to refer to like you did with the shape of the earth of the earth. Therefore, NEITHER of us are right or wrong. That is why you will not tell i am wrong for liking the taste of lemon.

Morality is objective or subjective?
If you say it is subjective, then like the case of the fruit, if i say i murdered a child, you cannot tell me i did something wrong simply because if you deem morality subjective, then you have nothig outside and beyond us to show me i am wrong for murdering, like example with fruit.

You can ONLY tell me i did somethig wrong if morality is objective. That is, referring to something outside and beyond us like in the case of the shape of the earth to show me am wrong.

Now you say, i have to demonstrate this objective morality. Well, when you say what Hitler did was wrong, what are you saying?
If morality is subjective, then you simply can say you dont like what Hitler did, doesnt make it wrong.

But if you want to continue with the stance that what he did was wrong, then essentually you are either admitting morality is objective or you are sufferring a delusion.

Which one is it?

 

[bulldogfan1]

I get where you are coming from, Utility Half, but at the same time, Bulldogfan1 makes a fair point.

Moral objectivism is the view that there exist moral facts that are true regardless of one’s opinion on them. Moral subjectivism is the view that there are no objectively true moral facts – only one’s personal subjective opinion. Perhaps many people share the same opinion, but it gives it no higher objective validity to one view over another. These are both different to moral absolutism and relativism.

Be careful not to equivocate with your usage of the word ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ in your extension of the lemon example. Its not about how one frames the moral proposition, it’s about the meta status of that claim.

The mere fact that there is disagreement over supposed facts doesn’t mean that there is no objective answer or fact, just like the fact children might answer different to a math problem doesn't mean there's no correct or true answer. Objectivity in the case in morality doesn’t deny people have subjective opinions; rather, it is simply that a standard exists independent of opinion and holds true even if everyone believed it were false.

And to your other point, it seems to me that a fact’s being proven isn’t what makes it objective. Rather, our proving it is what let’s us know it is objectively true. Regardless, in the case of moral right and wrong, it would be a category mistake to demand some sort of empirical evidence for moral propositions. What’s required is a valid and sound logical deduction based on almost undeniable premises. There’s a long rich philosophical tradition of just that, in contrast to the philosophical traditions of subjectivity and relativism.

I guess the question is ultimately that, when you are condemning certain acts, are you merely saying, “this goes against my personal subjective opinion”, or do you speak and act as though that person has committed something graver than that, and broken a real standard or law?

Nice,

As you say, unless there is a standard outside all of us, then there are no rigth and wrong acts when it comes to morality, they are just a collection of preferences and desires. If God does not exist, then what we call morality is just the bi product of the socio evolutionary process. That is, we have adopted this co-opertaive behaviour that is beneficial to the survival of the species. But that does not make them objective. I mean, species may like to survive and flourish, but it does not mean that they ought to. This is the IS-OUGHT Fallacy.

Therefore, if that North Korean president nuked the whole planet, if God does not exist, then he has done nothing wrong. He just eliminated everything on earth. If it is not a fact that any species ought to survive and flourish then he has not done anything wrong.

 

[Mr Invisible]

Wow hasn't this gone completely off track here. Time to get things back on track or it gets closed.

So sounds like Folau is going to challenge the ARU's ruling, but the problem is by challenging that ruling he may have issues under hate speech and anti discrimination laws.

 

[Flanagun]

Wow hasn't this gone completely off track here. Time to get things back on track or it gets closed.

So sounds like Folau is going to challenge the ARU's ruling, but the problem is by challenging that ruling he may have issues under hate speech and anti discrimination laws.

Oh, come on dude.... this is actually an interesting discussion.... it hasn’t devolved into shouting matches and trolling. Why shut it down?

 

[Flanagun]

I get where you are coming from, Utility Half, but at the same time, Bulldogfan1 makes a fair point.

Moral objectivism is the view that there exist moral facts that are true regardless of one’s opinion on them. Moral subjectivism is the view that there are no objectively true moral facts – only one’s personal subjective opinion. Perhaps many people share the same opinion, but it gives it no higher objective validity to one view over another. These are both different to moral absolutism and relativism.

Be careful not to equivocate with your usage of the word ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ in your extension of the lemon example. Its not about how one frames the moral proposition, it’s about the meta status of that claim.

The mere fact that there is disagreement over supposed facts doesn’t mean that there is no objective answer or fact, just like the fact children might answer different to a math problem doesn't mean there's no correct or true answer. Objectivity in the case in morality doesn’t deny people have subjective opinions; rather, it is simply that a standard exists independent of opinion and holds true even if everyone believed it were false.

And to your other point, it seems to me that a fact’s being proven isn’t what makes it objective. Rather, our proving it is what let’s us know it is objectively true. Regardless, in the case of moral right and wrong, it would be a category mistake to demand some sort of empirical evidence for moral propositions. What’s required is a valid and sound logical deduction based on almost undeniable premises. There’s a long rich philosophical tradition of just that, in contrast to the philosophical traditions of subjectivity and relativism.

I guess the question is ultimately that, when you are condemning certain acts, are you merely saying, “this goes against my personal subjective opinion”, or do you speak and act as though that person has committed something graver than that, and broken a real standard or law?

Nice,

As you say, unless there is a standard outside all of us, then there are no rigth and wrong acts when it comes to morality, they are just a collection of preferences and desires. If God does not exist, then what we call morality is just the bi product of the socio evolutionary process. That is, we have adopted this co-opertaive behaviour that is beneficial to the survival of the species. But that does not make them objective. I mean, species may like to survive and flourish, but it does not mean that they ought to. This is the IS-OUGHT Fallacy.

Therefore, if that North Korean president nuked the whole planet, if God does not exist, then he has done nothing wrong. He just eliminated everything on earth. If it is not a fact that any species ought to survive and flourish then he has not done anything wrong.

You both raise some interesting points. I have some questions and thoughts I’d like to throw back at you both, but a) there is talk of the thread being closed down and b) I’ve had a long afternoon, am tired and if I am to reply, need to do it with a clearer head. I’ll try to come back to this at some point over the next few days if it’s permitted.

Whether that is the case or not, thank you for an interesting discussion and for the food for thought.

 

[Mr Invisible]

Oh, come on dude.... this is actually an interesting discussion.... it hasn’t devolved into shouting matches and trolling. Why shut it down?

Religious discussion always turns to shit, hence is banned on here.

 

[Flanagun]

Religious discussion always turns to shit, hence is banned on here.

This one hasn’t.... and it’s a philosophical discussion as much as it is a religious one.

 

[Mr Invisible]

This one hasn’t.... and it’s a philosophical discussion as much as it is a religious one.

It hasn't yet, but theres always someone who pops up and shits the bed

 

[Caveman]

Wow hasn't this gone completely off track here. Time to get things back on track or it gets closed.

So sounds like Folau is going to challenge the ARU's ruling, but the problem is by challenging that ruling he may have issues under hate speech and anti discrimination laws.

I don't think it's gone off track, if anything it's got at the very core of the issue with some very deep and well thought out arguments from both sides of the fence.

I'm not to sure Folau will have to worry about any anti discrimination lawsuit due to the fact that he is not so much hanging his statement on his own authority, but rather staking the claim that someone else has declared this in a book, and furthermore that book (according to Israel) is the very word and revelation of God.

NSW State anti discrimination law (S 4.9ZT) has clauses that will strongly support Israel from a religious perspective when defending against a claim of discrimination, whilst the fair work act (s 772) and international "freedom of religion" law will (used as a guide - which is quite common for s 772 cases) will support Israel should he choose to persue discrimination against him on religious grounds.

 

[bulldogfan1]

You both raise some interesting points. I have some questions and thoughts I’d like to throw back at you both, but a) there is talk of the thread being closed down and b) I’ve had a long afternoon, am tired and if I am to reply, need to do it with a clearer head. I’ll try to come back to this at some point over the next few days if it’s permitted.

Whether that is the case or not, thank you for an interesting discussion and for the food for thought.

No worries

 

[Legend23]

I'll tell you part of my religion, following the doggies!!

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I don't think it's gone off track, if anything it's got at the very core of the issue with some very deep and well thought out arguments from both sides of the fence.

I'm not to sure Folau will have to worry about any anti discrimination lawsuit due to the fact that he is not so much hanging his statement on his own authority, but rather staking the claim that someone else has declared this in a book, and furthermore that book (according to Israel) is the very word and revelation of God.

NSW State anti discrimination law (S 4.9ZT) has clauses that will strongly support Israel from a religious perspective when defending against a claim of discrimination, whilst the fair work act (s 772) and international "freedom of religion" law will (used as a guide - which is quite common for s 772 cases) will support Israel should he choose to persue discrimination against him on religious grounds.

It's a very tricky situation. There is definitely religious protections in place, and it's not an anti-discrimination legal issue (that only relates to service or employment), but he also doesn't get the full religious protections because it doesn't extend to attacks on an individual or group. For example, if a religion says that all black people are evil, you can still be fired for posting that.

This is where the separation of church and state comes in. Religion can't dictate the law.

Article 18 section 3 of the Human Rights Commission states:

"Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others"

That means that the protection of others takes priority over freedom of religion, including the protection of people from being attacked for who they are.

Article 18 is the recognised source of freedom of religion and expression/opinion (free speech) in Australia.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I'll tell you part of my religion, following the doggies!!

A religion I'm quickly losing my faith in.

 

[Legend23]

A religion I'm quickly losing my faith in.

And yet you're here

 

[Mr Invisible]

A religion I'm quickly losing my faith in.

So that's you in the corner?
That's you in the spotlight losing your religion?
Trying to keep cheering the Dogs
When there performances are in the bogs...
Oh no, I've said too much
PENALTY BRONCOS

 

[Legend23]

So that's you in the corner?
That's you in the spotlight losing your religion?
Trying to keep cheering the Dogs
When there performances are in the bogs...
Oh no, I've said too much
PENALTY BRONCOS

Great song, great band

 

[Mr Invisible]

Great song, great band

Automatic for the People and Monster were absolute belters of albums. Had them both on casette, and cranked them hard on my Teac walkman.

92 and 94... around that era gave birth to some of the finest grunge music ever written. Some absolute masterclass albums came out.