What’s not clear? Not saying I agree with the decision – and it surely looks fishy when only the (two)non LDS members voted (“dissented”) against the sale but the article clearly says it is water under the bridge.

Now I repeat my question: since it is so controversial, why not just fence it off?

An excellent article. Thank you for sharing it with us.

DCT [divine command theory] is thus a kind of moral relativism: what’s right or wrong is what one’s God (like one’s self or one’s society) says is right or wrong–and there are no moral standards apart from this. Yet if God said that 2+2=100, 2+2=100 would nonetheless be false because 2+2=4 is true regardless of what God says. The same point holds for moral propositions like “inflicting unnecessary suffering solely for fun is wrong.” If that proposition is true, then it is true regardless of whether God commands or prohibits inflicting such suffering [a possibility left open by divine command theory; and a possibility inconsistent with the very existence of god].

Initially I made an assumption – it seemed obvious that was part of the church’s rationale. Why else would they need to take over a public street?

But that was confirmed by posts I read from SLC residents in another article on this site, and in comments on SLC Tribune stories I have read on the issue.

Speaking of which. This is just one article that makes it clear not everyone sees things as black and white as you do.

http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_12864692

The article also states that the original deal allowed the city to retain a public right of way, something which is obviously no longer being respected.

This is boring. You’re boring and stupid.

LOL! Of course I can get out of it, and have. I’ll just cut and paste repeat. First, I acknowledged the fact that the city selling the property to the lds was not voting for people’s rights. Secondly, I think that property should be sold with the consent of the owner UNLESS an overriding concern is made clear (I added this just then, but I never argued against it, and it is thereby consistent with what I’ve been saying). As no one owns civil rights (or natural rights), they should not be subject to sale or trade by anyone. SO it’s a nonsequitur to claim that I believe that civil rights should be voted on.

Second, I stated that civil rights are being violated here (de facto though not de jure), and that the sale without the consent of the owner (the public) makes it wrong. Does that imply that I think that civil rights should be voted on? No, because civil rights aren’t what would be voted on in this case–it’s the sale of the land. And if you got consent of the owner to sell the property, there can’t be any kind of violation (whether in principle or practice).

Gotta go. To be continued…

“How am I asserting a moral truth that I cannot prove is an actual moral truth? I’ve provided arguments why it’s wrong to violate people’s rights and sell public land without the consent of the public. And, also, anything that is a major public point of access should be maintained by the public and not sold off to a private interest without a legitimate public concern…you have provided none.”

If it is wrong because someone’s rights have been violated, then you have to show what right has been violated based on the actual facts of the case. You can’t do that. Therefore, all you have is your belief that it was wrong.

“No, it’s not. I can talk about civil rights violations without making a legal argument.”

Hilarious. See definition of “civil right.” You still don’t understant what it means.

“And I’ve provided several arguments which justify the normative judgment that it was wrong. None of which you’ve addressed, btw…except one, which was, for you…uncommon. And I addressed it with consent.”

You didn’t address it with consent. If civil rights are at stake, how can someone from California consent to a vote by the citizens of Salt Lake City. You painted yourself into a corner that you can’t get out of.

No, it’s not. I can talk about civil rights violations without making a legal argument.

How am I asserting a moral truth that I cannot prove is an actual moral truth? I’ve provided arguments why it’s wrong to violate people’s rights and sell public land without the consent of the public. And, also, anything that is a major public point of access should be maintained by the public and not sold off to a private interest without a legitimate public concern…you have provided none.

“Am I losing it? It seems like you’re the one who believes in invisible magical friends.”

Try to stay on topic.

“Oh, and I was never making a legal argument. I wouldn’t dirty my hands with something so low brow.”

Then stop talking about civil rights violations. That is by definition a legal argument.

Am I losing it? It seems like you’re the one who believes in invisible magical friends.

“No, I’ve never argued that something is right because I said it’s right.”

You are asserting moral truths that you cannot prove are actual moral truth. Therefore, the only evidence you can provide that you are correct is the fact that you believe it is.

Oh, and I was never making a legal argument. I wouldn’t dirty my hands with something so low brow.

“But it’s not that far fetched, is it, champ? I mean if you can believe in a supernatural entity who arbitrarily determines right from wrong based on no standard separate from itself, then I think it’s quite plausible that you’re the schmuck who wrote that…being a mormon, too.”

No. Get a grip on yourself, Tank. You’re losing it.

And I’ve provided several arguments which justify the normative judgment that it was wrong. None of which you’ve addressed, btw…except one, which was, for you…uncommon. And I addressed it with consent.

No, I’ve never argued that something is right because I said it’s right.

“So why is SLC’s decision to sell the main plaza to the lds right?

A: Because Jim said it’s right.

But why did he say it?

A: He just knows…I dunno.

What does he know?

A: That it’s right.

But why is it right?

A: Because Jim said it’s right…

But why did he say it’s right?

A: Because it’s right.

Ah, okay. So why is it right?

A: Because Jim said it’s right.

So what is it about Jim saying it’s right that makes it right?

…he’s perfectly good and all knowing…LOL!

WHy is he perfectly good?

A: Because he said he is.”

Actually, you just stated your own “argument”, but in reverse.

It was a legal transaction. If you believe it was wrong, you are the one making the normative statement, not me, and the onus is on you. I don’t have to argue your position for you. Initially, you claimed it was a violation of civil rights (a legal argument by definition), but you still haven’t shown that a civil right was violated. Instead, you merely posited hypothetical situations which do not reflect the facts of the case and therefore have no bearing on the discussion. Then you changed strategies and claimed it wasn’t based on a legal argument but rather an absolute moral truth, which is by definition unprovable, because you can’t prove that your concept of moral truth is the absolute moral truth, which you would need to do to prove your position.

My position has been consistent throughout. Until you can prove that a civil right has been violated, or alternatively, that an absolute moral truth is being violated, the onus remains on you.

But it’s not that far fetched, is it, champ? I mean if you can believe in a supernatural entity who arbitrarily determines right from wrong based on no standard separate from itself, then I think it’s quite plausible that you’re the schmuck who wrote that…being a mormon, too.

SO while they were legally acknolwedged and enforced, you’d think they were ethically sound. Be consistent.

Regardless of religion? But what about religions which disagree with each other about what gods exist and what gods say what?

Now, if what you mean by universalist is that what god says is right is true regardless of context, then that’s consistent with moral relativism. As I said, you can be a moral relativist (metaethical moral relativist) and believe that murder is wrong regardless of the context because of your standard for determining right from wrong. In your case, you believe that it’s a nonphysical god’s beliefs that determine right from wrong–so that’s your relative standard. And it can apply in every context in which predicates good and bad are used. Because they mean that to you.

“Illegal, as in jim crowe laws weren’t illegal for a very, very long time. Now, according to you, those laws were ethically permissable simply because they were legal.”

It took some time for challenges based on the Equal Protection Clause and the Commerce Clause to overturn them, but both predate the Jim Crow laws.

You just said they weren’t wrong. Is that what you meant to say?

“I don’t think you know what you mean by universalist. Please, explain.”

I understand it, but you obviously don’t. A universalist concept of morality applies UNIVERSALLY regardless of culture, race, religion, etc. Divine command theory is a universalist theory of morality. Moral relativism is not.

Illegal, as in jim crowe laws weren’t illegal for a very, very long time. Now, according to you, those laws were ethically permissable simply because they were legal.

“No, they weren’t in fact wrong, and survived until they were challenged for a very long time. It was legal. And it was also legal to own slaves at one point…are you’d be calling that right, too.”

Is this what you really meant to say, or is it just a case of fumble fingers?

I don’t think you know what you mean by universalist. Please, explain.

A: Because Jim said it’s right.

But why did he say it?

A: He just knows…I dunno.

What does he know?

A: That it’s right.

But why is it right?

A: Because Jim said it’s right…

But why did he say it’s right?

A: Because it’s right.

Ah, okay. So why is it right?

A: Because Jim said it’s right.

So what is it about Jim saying it’s right that makes it right?

…he’s perfectly good and all knowing…LOL!

WHy is he perfectly good?

A: Because he said he is.

“LOL! It’s jim.”

Weak, Tank.

“That’s not true. You don’t know what moral relativism is. Moral relativism is a metaethical theory. It seeks to explain what ethical judgments are and what makes them true. According to relativism, moral properties (goodness and badness) are relational properties like gravity. They exist only in relation to individual’s beliefs and the circumstance they’re evaluating (much like divine command theory–it’s relative to god’s belief and judgment). Now according to relativism, one can say that something is wrong and universally wrong–and when someone seems to disagree with them, they’re not. IT’s called talking past someone. They have different meanings for right and wrong. Divine command theory is explained perfectly by moral relativism.”

Wrong. Moral relativism is by definition NOT universalist. Divine command theory is. That is why they are opposing theories.

LOL! It’s jim.

Have the Noon8 campaign apologised yet for the lying ad they showed depicting Mormons breaking into someone’s house?

No, I was correcting myself. I said that selling this property WAS NOT a voting on people’s civil rights.

Just so they can have a firewall? Where did you get that idea?

That’s not true. You don’t know what moral relativism is. Moral relativism is a metaethical theory. It seeks to explain what ethical judgments are and what makes them true. According to relativism, moral properties (goodness and badness) are relational properties like gravity. They exist only in relation to individual’s beliefs and the circumstance they’re evaluating (much like divine command theory–it’s relative to god’s belief and judgment). Now according to relativism, one can say that something is wrong and universally wrong–and when someone seems to disagree with them, they’re not. IT’s called talking past someone. They have different meanings for right and wrong. Divine command theory is explained perfectly by moral relativism.

“Was not.”

Was too.

Sheesh, what kind of comment is that?

As I said Jim, none of that makes it just. Laws change, especially bad laws.

And I repeat, there are limits to how landowners can treat people on their property, especially if it involves a standard which is not applied evenly.

Shame on your city and your state for letting the church take over public property just so they can have a firewall; and if the church expected it would shield them from public criticism I think they may be in for a rude awakening after this kind of bullying.

If that’s the stipulated difference you’re relying on, it changes nothing in my arguments. Just call them natural rights.