With regard to the abortion debate in particular, what grounds do you see as resolvable through objective, causal means? On what objective fact do liberals and conservatives disagree?
I'm not sure I can give a short response to this question, and I don't want to turn this into an abortion debate. But to put it plainly, the pro-life side is tainted by religious sentiment, which seriously weakens any argument, and the pro-choice movement doesn't seem to address the moral concerns at all. Despite our conversation, I still don't see how "my body my choice" is anything more than "I'll do what I want and I'd like to see you stop me". Before we can even begin to debate objectively, we must agree on what we're debating. There are two issues here. First, we have the issue of dependence, and whether it justifies killing a person. Secondly, we have the question of what exactly defines personhood. Right now, the pro-lifers mostly debate the second issue, while the choicers are more concerned with the first. So they're not even debating the same thing. All of this, of course, assumes agreement on what morality is by both groups. I think this is close to being true, but not entirely. So the debate should probably begin with objective definition of the moral standards we're pursuing.
However, I don't share your position that currently rigid ideologies can't be changed. The issue is that such ideologies are not adopted by appeal to the objective. Something which was not believed for objective reasons, and is not an objective statement, will not be abandoned for objective reasons. I agree there are no rights sculpted in the clouds. They are, however, sculpted in our emotions and habits. When we get people to change their emotions and habits, the change to right will follow.
Yes. No disagreement here. It's a stretch to call what you (and me) are describing "ideology" though. The public seems to associate ideology with close-minded obedience to an unchangeable set of principles. I think this is partly due to society's holding the disastrous idea of faith in such high regard. Recently, one of the most vocal anti-GM foods activists indicated that his review of the evidence and arguments for and against GMOs is forcing him to switch. He did what everyone is supposed to do. He molded his worldview to fit with the best available evidence. And he received so much **** for it. Now he's weak minded. Or bought out by big agriculture. Another example is philosopher Antony Flew's movement from atheism to deism. I was very active in Utah's atheist community back then, and I don't think I've met a single atheist who accepted that maybe he changed his mind because he does believe deism makes a stronger case. They were all convinced, without knowing anything about his thought or even who this man is, that he is just afraid of death because of his advanced age. People are trained to believe what appeals to them emotionally, and they will adopt and discard evidence as they see fit. This applies to the most devout Christian and the most secular atheist (generally, obviously a lot of people see the trouble). That's the main problem we're facing, not just some bafflingly backward mentalities here and there.
I agree with everything you cay about the condition of racism. It is at its root a cultural, not biological, construct. However, cultural constructs possess their own inertia. If you do not actively fight that inertia, they will continue to roll (and if some people push them along, they grow stronger). You only stop that movement by actively fighting the inertia. Yes, this requires racism to be acknowledged as a phenomenon, but turning a blind eye to a weed will not stop it from growing. While there are more biological difference upon which people defending sexism claim to rely, the same basically holds true there.
Again, I have no problems with that. I simply question the approach. Attacking racism, or sexism, must begin by attacking the basis for their existence. It is not enough to simply tell people not to say the n-word (I don't self censor, but I believe the word would be bleeped). Fixing the main problem that is the acceptance of logically indefensible, emotionally based, subjective opinions is a step in fixing a vast array of problems. What I'm saying actually does seem to trickle down to cultural consciousness (people understand the parallels between sexism and racism). However, trying to remedy the situation one issue at a time, while ignoring the underlying cause for all of them is just busywork. We're simply covering one problem with enough bandages that we won't see the wound anymore, and then we move on to the next wound. But it would be easier, and far more effective, if we can just restrain the knife wielding maniac.
As you point out earlier, there will be no moral principles written in the clouds awaiting discovery. They have to come from our us.
That said, 1) saying a person should be able to marry a person they find fits a general category of sexual desirability affects more about them than their happiness level (whatever that would be), 2) even if a individuals happiness level is not an end goal, it can be supportive goal towards other ends, and 3) just as the argument saying 'homosexual marriage is wrong' does not occur in a vacuum, but as a part of a general climate towards homosexuals, the response that their feelings are natural is not a response to a single, isolated argument, but to the general climate toward homosexuals.
Morality must follow the same objective principles that should govern all other aspects of problem solving. And I'm going to define morality as the set of rules that draw the accepted boundaries in the various realms of human experience (I don't like leaving anything open to interpretation). That is another major failing of contemporary culture. Let's say that we agree than morality should serve as the best possible model to advance the well-being of as many things that well-being applies to as possible (this seems like a workable first principle). We would have to agree of the definition of well-being of course, and to what it applies. But keeping it simple, let's say well-being primary revolves around aversion to harm, and it includes other concepts like happiness, comfort, self-determination, and so on. Gay marriage seems to logically be a moral position given our definition. It harms nobody in any readily apparent way, and it is what gay people want. I see no moral reason to deny them that act. Since I'm making no unverified positive statements, the burden of proof falls on the opposition. If you say it is harmful to the individual and/or society, then you must provide the mechanism for that harm and the proof. That automatically takes out "god's wrath" and all similar ideas, as they are not falsifiable or verifiable.
It seems like we're reaching a point of convergence in our opinion on the matter. And I love how the argument barely relates to sexism anymore.
