http://pilotonline.com/sports/college/old-dominion/football/alabama-will...
ODU officials announced Friday afternoon that defending national champion Alabama will send at least five staff members to the camp, which is being co-hosted by Michigan and its outspoken head coach, Jim Harbaugh.
These camps are going to get out of control.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
I'm hoping for an Anchorman-style brawl between the coaching staffs.
Won't happen, Bama is hosting an on campus camp at Bama this weekend.
I'm quite certain that Saban is immortal and Harbaugh can't feel pain so it would be an interesting matchup.
"Lane Kiffin killed a guy"
Ha. This made me think of something. Lane Kiffin likes to talk a lot, but he's been mostly corralled since he started at Alabama. Maybe Saban is going to send him to Harbaugh's camps to start a war of words with the big talker of the sport, Harbaugh. Harbaugh vs. Kiffin throwing shade at each other. Now all we need is Spurrier to be in the mix somehow. Hilarity ensues
"These camps are going to get out of control."
To Hell with that.
Our coach is from the line of basically the only P5 school in Texas without a current scandal and recent success.
We need to get down there, we have never really had an in, now we have a coach and a recent starting QB(from one of the more prominent HS's and areas).
Just because we let our standing slip and didn't create a network where we can call up other programs to tag team, doesn't make the rule bad, it means we were lax on another aspect of the game in the end.
We always here about the entire or just defensive staff visiting schools like Ole Miss or Missouri over the summer to swap ideas, boom lets start joint hosting camps, double down.
The camps are going to get out of control when this happens: High School of Star Player John Smith hosts camp for colleges to come, Nike sponsors said camp and pays the High School 100,000 dollars, other kids want to come to said camp and pay 50-100 dollars a person to come, now who gets that money? What stops a college from paying a high school a "fee" to host their own camp on that High School field and thus pushing that coach to push his players to that school? IMG Academy, a High School, in Florida just got paid 150,000 by Michigan to host their summer workout there. With no rules to camps this is the future of camps.
> High School of Star Player John Smith hosts camp for colleges to come, Nike sponsors said camp and pays the High School 100,000 dollars
So the High School just got money to not have shit facilities, not seeing how that is bad for kids anywhere. Besides if the worry is that Coaches will act as gate keepers for proffered schools, you act like that doesn't happen already. And in the end it is up to the kid and to a degree his parents/ guardians to decide how open or closed they want the recruitment to be, if they really want to be recruited by a certain school it wont matter what the coach says, and last I checked the scholarship limit is still 85 total and 25 in a year, even if a school were to corner the market on HS coaches they coudltn take everyone, not even all the good ones, and that breeds resentment and hardens feelings.
That's fine, there is no requirement on either end, either for a kid to be accessible to every school, or for those close to him to have preferential schools. Maybe the HS coach gets burned on the guest colleges when they spend more time with guest players than ones from his own school, now that college has wasted their money potentially.
If the environment continues like it already is ( we are fooling ourselves if we think coaches don't already do this) but now maybe the schools have a new and thus more effective/safe/modern weight room or can afford a nutrition program to better prepare the kids that seems like a net win.
Yea because that's where the money will go, not into the coaches, kids, parents, go between a pockets.
got a strange feeling that come Fall these Satelite camps will be put to bed for good. The NCAA will see how it works this summer and if it keeps going down the path its going it'll get canned.
douche canoe at Michigan is about to ruin it for everyone.
Douche canoe at Michigan is too busy sleeping in the bedrooms of recruits each night to care
How did the NCAA react back when the AAU summer leagues and all started to blow up for basketball, seems like that is the one even sort of close comparison.
they decided to introduce an early signing period for basketball... something that they absolutely should do for football. It would get rid of the shitty games HC's play with over offering and they having to pull offers from kids so late in the process.
Yeah there are a whole slew of Signing reforms I would like, and early period being #1.
Also a NLI automatically being invalidated if a coaching staff changes before a kids sets foot on campus, as we are seeing with now Baylor dragging its feet with giving recruits their release. Ideally without any sort of sitting out for the kid.
Those are probably the biggest two.
So you are saying nothing will change.
If your prediction comes to pass, I would say its even a slight improvement, as you can bet the dollar value will be reported on, instead of your generic shady "Bag Men" today.
Not to say bag men will go away, just one aspect of what they do will become more out in the open, which helps VT since we are pretty damn far behind some other schools in that department, which is of course both a positive and a negative.
That's where I want VT to stay far behind schools like Ole Miss.
And I am tired of being 0-1 in national championships.
Nobody cares a decade later if the damn ridiculous NCAA tries to pretend the game never happened, everyone remembers who won.
My moral compass doesn't bend for a trophy, sorry.
I don't see paying an athlete for their services as morally wrong.
Correct that's what the NFL,CFL,AFL is for.
Yeah, if only those leagues would allow a kid to join before the age of 20, and not force them into a development program where they are strictly forbidden to make a dime off their abilities, which also happens to be the level at which 99% of the workforce ends their career in the sport.
So, if you want to play football, before the age of 20, your options are to either play for free at the collegiate level, or... uhhh... well this is awkward...
Both the CFL and AFL have an age limit of 18. These kids want to go straight to be paid a salary then guess what they have entry level options.
So the only option for someone who wants to get paid for playing football before the age of 20 is to go into 2 leagues, both of which are bastardized versions of the one you have spent your entire career preparing to play? So your training will actually most likely hinder your chances of success at the NFL level rather than help them?
And this, in your mind is acceptable?
I mean, this isn't even getting into the multi-billion dollar business that collegiate football currently is, of which the athletes on whose backs the game is played are strictly prohibited from seeing a dime.
Could a 5* (or any player for that matter) go straight to CFL, get paid for 2 years and then join the NFL?
you really believe that a kid would survive the jump from high school to nfl? They would be destroyed.
And athletes in university are paid a lot. Besides education, stipend, free coaching, free weight training, free nutrition, and on and on they also get free publicity, marketing and on the job training in national television spotlight worth tens of millions that has been directly linked to the increase in rookie salaries and the big, big money that first rounders get.
So while i believe stipends should be increased and health care be provided universally before and after for all sports injuries while playing in school, it's naive to say that what is recieved is not incredibly valuable.
Hokiefireman is correct. They have a choice. Go make money now. Or get all of these things free for a short period of time in an effort to get bigger money later.
Not a hard choice IMO
I fail to see how a college education, food, ect aren't worth anything.
It's not that they aren't compensated, it's that the NCAA has set it up to keep compensation so far below anything approaching true market value for many players as to be both laughable and morally wrong.
If another school values a kid that much higher that they are willing to spend an extra say 10k a year on him out of their limited budget, why shouldn't they. if he busts then the salt and anger from the alumni paying for it will be all the greater and the system self corrects.
I mean FBS football players are at their most basic paid for their services, I am just advocating doing what we can to pay a more realistic market value for them, if another schools is willing to offer a kid somewhat more than the current scholarship value should we not at least try to match it, if we thought the kid was important enough to offer in the first place.
Then who decides market value? Does every kid get paid? Is there an upper limit (salary cap)? Is it just money paid from the schools funds or can anyone pay the kid?
It would be better to try to answer the questions than to ignore them, which is what is happening right now. Sure they are tough to decide, but that doesn't mean there should be nothing as a response.
I'm not ignoring those questions, I'm waiting for someone, anyone to answer all the questions associated with paying players. Instead all we hear about is, players should be paid and if X school is paying them then why shouldn't we.
Yes I would be in favor of a Gross salary cap, and then a range that you can pay players.
So that the minimum might be just what tuition and Cot of Living comes out to, and then maybe something like lets say 25% of a schools allocation from the conference media package is used above that to compensate the players who are driving that viewership the most.
Where is the money going to come from?
Are coaches really worth 5 million a or are they worth maybe 2mil and the rest is just the reflected value of the athletes on the team.
How much is an Athletic Director really worth?
Some are exceptional but in general athletic dept salaries have exploded detached from all connections to both revenue and on field performance.
Could be a good first place to look.
There is also the extra 45 mil ESPN owes the ACC if a network isn't launched.
Spoken like a fan of an athletic department with a grand total of 0 varsity team national championships in its history.
Its one thing if our moral compass is leading us to success without bending rules. Its a whole other ballgame if all our peers are having success, bending the rules that aren't truly enforced to begin with, and we're excusing our inability to succeed with the argument of having better morals than the rest. I'm growing tired of the annual excuses and loser mentality.
the big thing is we shouldn't start breaking rules just to do so... I do like Fuente's rule on if you commit you can't take any other OV's and if you are committed Fuente definitely won't let you take an official at VT. That's a good start IMO, and hopefully more is to come.
Another thought is these big time programs also have HUGE Alumni/Booster organizations.. those boosters are more likely part of the "bag men team" . VT just doesn't have the resources to do shady things without it being super obvious.
Winning a championship the right way is a lot better than cutting moral corners to win one. Just because other schools are doing it, doesn't mean we should too.
Yeah, right now we're not taking some moral high ground... We're that one high school senior that actually attends class on cut day because skipping out would be against the rules.
I think it comes down to if you think the NCAA is itself morally in the right and if the current scholarship model is or is not morally wrong to start with.
That sort of frames the whole, is slipping players some more on the side right/wrong question.
Its against the rules
Rules can be wrong. Rules are arbitrary and can change. Right and wrong don't change regardless of the rulebook.
It is wrong until the rules are changed. There is no grey area in that. Is it just? That is debatable.
That line of logic would never see us as a society advance. Since a rule is a rule regardless of its ability to be morally justified. And rules need to be followed.
It would have had us say "ehh they are just taxes, God Save King George"
Morality vs legality is an interesting debate. Can one outweigh the other? I can't answer for sure, but I know for a fact they do in reality.
Morality always trumps legality. Laws change. Morals don't.
well, that is just not true. Morality changes all the time.
the fact is that rules, laws, morals, ethics are all flexible to change given societal normality. The subject of whether it is moral to NOT pay student athletes is a contemporary moral issue. Are universities taking unfair, and immoral, advantage over these kids? In my view no. But others may say "yes" and in their view paying kids to play is not immoral but the right thing to do, rather the "moral" thing to do.
Are you seriously arguing moral relativism right now? Because it's been refuted all over the place. Our opinions of certain morals, and how we apply them, may be conditioned, but the underlying moral principle is rigid. There is definable right and wrong. The payment of student athletes is not, in and of itself, a moral question. The moral question is "should people be fairly compensated for labor?" The arguments on this specific issue are not moral arguments, but technical ones regarding how to define fair compensation in this case. We all agree that athletes should be taken care of in some way. We disagree in the proposed means. The only reason that morality got brought up was because people equate legality with morality, which is false. A thing can be right even if it's against the rules. It is not inherently immoral to break rules. One must examine the reasoning behind both the rule and the action which violates it.
if you are trying to suggest that there are absolutes in philosophy then I'm not sure where to go with that. fundamentally that is wrong. So despite the "refuted all over the place" it is still as pertinent as what you believe because it is also supported all over the place. Which i suppose is also an example of meta-ethical relativism.
But I am not arguing anything. what you said is wrong. morality is not absolute, and what is morality to you is not morality universally for everyone else.
There is no arguing that. If you are right then who sets what is or is not moral? you? a greater power? that's right, no one has that ability.
the question you state as an issue of morality: "should people be fairly compensated for labor?" in fact is not a question of morality, but of law. Labor is not defined by morals, but by rule of law. compensation, and what constitutes "fair compensation", equally is not a question of morality but of law. People who govern must make these decisions, it is not a moral question at all.
The moral question is whether student athletes should or should NOT be paid at all. It either is moral or is not moral as defined by social normality.
Edit: Apologies. The video without explanation was counterproductive, and came across as overly hostile in hindsight. Should've let it go till I actually had time for a full response. So,
We're not talking philosophy, we're talking morality. There is inherent right and wrong. Things that you don't need to be told or conditioned not to do. No one has to tell you not to kill people for sport. You already know not to do that. Because it is intuitively wrong. There may be some difference in how to define certain terms, which I did point out before, but things do break down to black and white morality if we delve deep enough. No one has to set morals. They just are. They are inherent and unwavering. Everything else is quibbling over semantics.
The question I stated is entirely regarding morality, and you missed the clear point. Law may define labor, and it may define compensation, but it cannot change that my labor belongs to me, and if you want it, you must compensate me. Essentially, your argument justifies slavery, as long as the law says it's okay. You end by stating that there is a distinct difference between legal and moral questions. But this is incorrect. Laws stem from interpretation and application of morals, so all legal questions raise moral questions. So the underlying sentiment of the statement I made is in fact a moral question, whereas defining the terms becomes a legal question.
Finally, social normality defining morals is ludicrous, and I'll give an example (which will beget groans, but is nonetheless accurate):
P1. Cultural relativists propose moral rightness is a matter of obedience to cultural values.
P2. Nazi henchmen complicit in genocide were obedient to the accepted cultural values of Nazi Germany.
P3. Nazi henchmen were publicly convicted based upon the cultural values of the international community by way of an international trial and codes of the Geneva Convention.
P4. Both Nazi Germany and the international community considered their values to be correct.
P5. The moral opinions of 2 cultural groups to which Germany belonged were contradictory.
C. Therefore, cultural values alone are not enough to determine moral rightness.
Here's another:
P1. Moral relativists claim that there are no absolute moral standards.
P2. The claim "All moral standards are relative" proposes an absolute moral standard.
P3. To propose there are no absolute moral standards using an absolute moral standard is illogical.
C. Therefore, the relativist's claim "All moral standards are relative" is illogical.
So, in conclusion, you're wrong, your reasoning is highly flawed, and moral relativism is nonsense. Please enjoy the video.
this makes no sense to me. "all moral standards are relative" might be an absolute statement but it is not proposing an absolute moral standard. This part of your argument lost me.
I don't really have a dog in this fight. I just think your logic on that point is either flawed or mis-communicated.
Eh, I won't argue that it's not worded quite right. That's what happens when you plagiarize. But the way I understood it, is that moral relativism's defining point is it's claim that moral standards are not absolute. That morals are different depending on culture. It's the basis on which they argue morality, and therefore it is used as a type of moral standard. In that way, the statement makes sense. But I can totally see your point there.
I just can't wrap my head around how you're making this connection.
I just don't agree that saying "morality is relative to culture" is equal to an actual moral standard. Just because one might believe that morals (or anything really) are influenced and shaped by culture does not make that belief an actual moral standard.
In my mind that is like saying that beliefs that "standard" toppings for pizza are different based on culture are, themselves, toppings for pizza. That makes absolutely no sense.
What you're saying essentially breaks down as follows
Argument = "standard" toppings for pizza differ by culture
You're saying their argument is a type of topping for the pizza
Argument = topping for pizza
wut?
The only loser mentality here is the one that justifies breaking the rules to win. Measuring success by winning national championships is a foolish endeavor.
I've recently come to the conclusion that no school (including our own) is 'clean'. I don't know that there's many kids getting cars or getting 'salaried', but I'd wager a decent sum of money that any student athlete who plays a revenue sport in a P5 conference has the ability to get a couple hundred bucks under the table if/when they need it.
Obviously, criminal activity is something I want far away from our team. I would be ashamed if a Baylor situation or a UF/Urban Meyer situation happened here, but if it came out that a booster was giving Tyrod a couple hundred dollars to help pay his mom's electric bill, it wouldn't tarnish my opinion of Beamer in the slightest.
I deeply resent this.
I know, I wish we had our shit together as group too.
And if we want to remain weak sauce and a has been school it's fine. But we need to stop saying the goal of our football program is to win a title if that is the case.
I think you missed that petebuddywilson is our resident bag man...
I think my tone didnt come across as clear as I wanted, I meant to imply I am sad he doesnt have more help!
Well, this should be interesting.
Harbaugh is such a hot head I could see Saban purposely pushing his buttons making Harbaugh lash out (like punching Jim Kelly in the past). End of camps. Saban wins again.
Actually I don't think this is too far off of what will end up happening. Every camp Michigan organizes, Alabama will send a few folks just to stick it to Harbaugh. I'll love seeing it, too.
I don't think Harbaugh is being a hot head - I think he's intentionally trying to create news for his program. It's kind of a win-win for him. Best case scenario, he establishes pipelines to schools in the south. Worst case scenario, he's viewed by recruits as a player's coach, and he extra air time on ESPN (which is also a net positive for recruiting).
He is a hot head. If you don't like calling him that, can we agree that he is a passionate and emotional person who sometimes lets his emotions get the best of him?
Personally I think he is nuts and I look forward to watching him exploding on the national stage.
I still disagree. I think he's a genius and it's all planned/choreographed. I don't think he's letting his emotions get the best of him, I just think he's very Frank Underwood-esk. I personally enjoy watching his antics from a far.
I think he's eccentric. not sure I'd group that in with 'genius' but I don't know him well enough to really say, I guess.
I think the satellite camp Michigan is holding in Australia is where I start to lean toward this getting a little crazy. I agree with Fuente's comments on the matter, they just don't have very good policies established around these camps yet, as soon as there are better boundaries placed around them, then I am all for exposure for less touted recruits (the players most likely to benefit from them).
From the ODU camp today:
Khakis and an Iverson jersey. Is there anything that more perfectly sums up Michigan recruiting?
If he ever wears a Vick jersey, I will personally make sure he never enters the state of Virginia again.
Makes sense, Iverson is from the area
Looks like he is rocking the hat of a Navy surface ship. I'm curious which one he chose? Did he go with CVN-78 for Gerald Ford (a Michigan alum) or a custom made USS Harbaugh?
USS Michigan.
Now am eagerly awaiting a remake of Crimson Tide with all the Alabama references changed to Michigan.
http://pilotonline.com/sports/college/old-dominion/football/michigan-coa...
Someone tell me again about how these camps are for kids who can't travel to the school to attend a camp.
Your implication being that there arent current roving flocks of HS kids traveling from state to state for on campus camps? Cause there absolutely are, except now with even more events it isnt just the 4 and 5 stars from IMG touring all the SEC camps every summer.
Besides it was in Norfolk, are you really going to get in a tizzy over contingents NC, MD, or DE while the report offers 0 context of which states were present I think we can realistically say that all 3 were there. While ignoring the equally obvious logistically reality that it is even easier to pile the local kids 3 or 4 to a friends car and drive the 2 or 3 miles to the school, while Out of State it is increasingly likely it was either by the bus/van load or 1 to 1 car to kid.
The article talks about two kids specifically, one from Springfield Ohio and one from Boise Idaho. The kid from Springfield even went to a camp for Michigian in Springfield. I'm still waiting for all these positives from these massive camp schedules. I have yet to see an offer go to a kid from a camp yet, have you seen any?
Here is one, an OL kid, for the 2018 class granted, but still a short offer list if he is really a big time blue chip. Originally from Detroit but moved to Georgia when he was 6, so logistically might have been hard for him to visit the schools he had an affinity for.
Didn't even participate, just watched on the sidelines and committed to Michigan: http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2016/06/2018_offensive_lineman...
So there is a good example of a kid showing up, being seen in person, and things going fast.
For VT, obviously we don't yet, since the first one in NJ isn't for a week or two IIRC.
So he already had an offer without standing on the sidelines of a camp? So the camp played no role whatsoever in his recruitment or getting an offer.
He got to see the coaching staff do their thing without traveling 100's of miles, hard to see how that wasn't beneficial to his recruitment and himself.
Especially since everything shot of an Official is still on the kid's family to pay for.
If you believe that swayed his decision I have a bridge to sell you. He couldn't talk to any of the staff, not the entire staff was there, it's his only major offer.
How much does an unofficial visit where a kid might get 30 minutes seeing the coach, and the rest seeing everything not football help? Certainly some as evidenced by when Bucky committed on the rain out Spring Game.
This is just the opposite of that, on most visits recruits only see a minimum of a coach doing the nitty gritty of the job, for a camp, even standing to the side taking it in, its the focus.
And he didn't have to hump a few 100 miles on his own dime to do it if he didn't want.
Might not know this but thought it was a good comment to attach this to.
No offers can go out to recruits at satellite camps unless it's being run by said college.
Define "run" ODU is deferring so many decisions to teams they are doing these camps with I would argue the bigger schools are "running" them.
Use of facilities, equipment and coaching staff.
So Michigan can have as many staff members at ODU but only a % of staff members can run drills. So far that % is about 2-3 coaches.
Oh and there's at least 5-10 NCAA reps at these camps for obvious reasons. Like I said a couple days ago. The NCAA is looking at this period to see what exactly these camps will be used for and I fully expect them to be gone come fall.
I
So they can't offer in person at the camp, but nothing stops them from offering minutes after it's over on the phone/computer correct?
Iink the question is if it then is in an official dead period, sicne we aren't it is fair game.
Though IIRC schools are required to provide written scholarship offers? Hence why some terrible ones, like the VT one in comic sans have appeared over the years.
from what I understand the camp is not over until the next day, so coaches would have to wait to offer or even have discussions with any recruit until the AM.
These camps are basically the Nike skills combines but with actual NCAA coaches allowed to participate in and watch.
The NCAA also passed a rule banning essentially Coaches from signing and autographs at the camps, since whenever Harbaugh went all the local Big Blue fans would turn out in force, and of course the kids themselves wanted swag and such too.
In response to HightyTighty above (with apologies to everyone else not interested and hoping for recruiting news.)
I get that you are passionate about this, but, to put it kindly, you need more knowledge on this subject.
First off, morality is a study of philosophy. Therefore it cannot, as I said, be absolutely one thing or another.
but you don't need to take my word for it, here is something that hopefully can help explain morality, moral philosophy and descriptive versus normative morality. First off note where this article is found: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
this also may be helpful:
http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_ethics.html
as well as any number of thousands of articles on morality as a field of philosophical study.
Regarding your question on labor: Again, you are incorrect. Morals do not define your labor or that your labor is worth anything at all. You personally may regard that you are morally entitled to compensation for your labor but laws define and rule if you are in fact entitled to compensation and how much is fair. To prove the point. You are assuming labor has value: " but it cannot change that my labor belongs to me, and if you want it, you must compensate me."
But does your labor require compensation in true socialist or communist society? In these societies no one compensates you for your labor. Your labor is made for the greater good and you share in its resources collectively. That is defined by laws. Not morals. Again, YOU personally may believe what you believe but that is only you, not everyone. To presume your morality supersedes everyone else's is the fundamentally immoral. How about an example in today's society? an unpaid internship. Your absolutism as you stated is that I must be compensated. But the internship is unpaid. So is it immoral to offer unpaid internships? No, it is not.
You bring up slavery. You say it is morally wrong. I personally do not disagree. But you cannot say universally that this has always been a moral standard, because it factually has not. Again you are presuming what you perceive and believe to be moral standards are universal to everyone, everywhere for all time. But the defeat of this thinking is to put one person for every previous century and ask them the same moral question. Your theory is that the moral standard will be universal, but plainly it will not be. Going back to slavery, many of those people from past centuries will believe it the moral right for one person to own another. You cannot convince them it is wrong simply because society today believes it so, because society in their day believed it to be something else. You mean to say you are right simply because you say so?
You use an overly hyperbolic example of Nazis but are fundamentally wrong in your understanding of moral relativism. It does not excuse the actions of anyone, especially the Nazis. It simply asks why that was the norm at that time and how those norms formed differing and specific moral values. So your house of cards example to say moral relativism somehow justifies Nazis is plainly ludicrous. Factually, the issue of Nazi Germany has been studied in moral philosophy over and over again and is not justified, rather classified as a moral disagreement.
Finally, and an important note about moral absolutism and moral universalism. The reason I asked, and the reason you cannot answer who sets these moral values is that there are no set moral values. If you, right now, believe that everything you hold to be moral is the same universally and absolutely for everyone else then you are kidding yourself with delusions of grandeur. Your morals plainly are not mine, and there is no universal or absolute power setting what is moral for us both to follow. It is that simple to defeat either of these theories, and all of your claims.
Real world example. Gay marriage. Is it moral or not? (rhetorical) there is a moral disagreement about this, not a absolute or universal truth. It is not rigid as you proclaim. It is in fact set by meta-ethical decisions on societal norms.
and so... about that video... highly ironic
I could address several points you brought up, but I've accepted that that would be fruitless based on how this has gone so far (largely due to our own biases towards polar opposite theories of morality). I'll state simply that the fundamental problem with the moral relativism you espouse is that it presupposes that societies cannot behave immorally, since morality apparently depends entirely on popular will (as evidenced by that perplexing paragraph on slavery). This would seem to make the very concept of morality moot, to the point that a reasonable person would find it nonsensical. Essentially, if morals are that fluid, they are not morals at all. I think this is the reason you keep trying to raise points which have little to nothing to with morality (such as the gay marriage issue). Now, this isn't necessarily your fault, since a great portion of our society is happy to use words incorrectly (as evidenced by your gay marriage example, since gay marriage is amoral). With that, I think we should wrap this up. Our philosophies differ to the point of defining words differently, making debating the concept of morality nearly impossible, and surely no one other than us is enjoying this.
That is not moral relativism. It doesn't say that no one can be immoral. Your Nazi example is precisely something that is viewed as a moral disagreement about morality, and consequently viewed as immoral. Relativism simply states that morals must be defined by something. There is no magic ether that sets morals universally. That is nonsensical.
If you think gay marriage is not a question of morality then great. But that is only your perspective, and not universal to everyone. There is no way you can prove that your perspective holds true to everyone universally. There are plenty of people that believe and advocate daily that gay marriage is immoral, not amoral, but immoral. See: Baptist Church, Westboro for an extreme case. Again, your personal perspective may believe it is not an issue with morality, and that's great, but your beliefs on morality are not universal to everyone else.
Your last sentence is key: "Our philosophies differ"
This is precisely the point. It is a philosophy, not an absolute. Everyone's moral interpretation is different, not universal.
Your morals are not my morals. And there is no universal edict on what is or is not moral that applies absolutely. It's that simple.
By our philosophies differ, I did not mean, and would not want you to assume, that I'm conceding that point regarding relativism. The philosophy I adhere to (natural law theory), is a means interpreting and deducing morals, yes. But a philosophical standpoint is not where morals come from. Morals are rigid and unchanging. They are inherent. They exist regardless of whether people or philosophy do. Philosophy is how you discover and discuss them, but it is not what creates them. So though interpretation may differ, the moral remains the same. There are no "my morals or your morals." There are morals, and then there is my understanding and your understanding, and our applications thereof, but the moral remains absolute regardless of individual thought. This of course is grounded in the rational thought definition of natural law theory provided by Hobbes and Locke. It's using this definition of morality that I reach the conclusion that gay marriage is amoral. The examples you cite use the term "morality" incorrectly, just as you do. Though religious beliefs may help explain and examine moral issues, religious tenets should not be conflated with morality. Morals exist outside religion, and apply independently of religion. Religious zealots who proclaim their truth to be "morality" are simply abusing vocabulary to further an agenda. People misusing words doesn't prove relativism, it just proves that people can be wrong.
Natural Law Theory is also a study in philosophy. And though we interpret it differently, we both agree with it. However, because it is a philosophy it also is not an absolute. Just because we may agree and believe in it does not mean everyone, everywhere does as well.
This is your same problem with how you define morals and their rigidness. You are prescribing your beliefs onto everyone. But it doesn't work that way. Other people believe differently than you. Other people have different interpretations of philosophy than you. Therefore their morals may be, and are, different than yours.
If you think only religious zealots believe gay marriage is immoral then you are flatly wrong. Many non-religious people feel this way as well. Again, you say they are incorrect. That their understanding of morals is wrong. But, again, that is only YOU saying that. There is no edict that established what you say to be universal.
"Religious zealots who proclaim their truth to be "morality" are simply abusing vocabulary to further an agenda"
just as you are proclaiming that your definition of morals is the only truth to be known.
You are confusing the distinction between "morality" and "morals". Morality is inherent. Morality exists innately. Morals are created, and are defined by man.
look at the definitions of these terms:
Morality is innate. Morals are defined and learned. Thus morals are not rigid and have factually changed throughout time.
You've essentially reduced your argument to
This has become unproductive and tedious.
Actually i asked you questions you can't answer and explained the difference between morality and morals in effort to get you to understand what you believe is not universal and absolute to everyone else.
You can keep being reductive and insulting, but the facts still stand.
Agree to disagree then.
Who is responsible for setting the moral compass? What actually defines what is right and what is wrong? Morality has to come from somewhere, right?
I think that what many people consider to be moral actually goes against our biological make-up. For instance, instinctively, all animals (including homo sapiens) inherently adhere to "survival of the fittest". However, it is widely considered morally wrong for one human being to kill another human being (especially over something as trivial as food). So instinctively, biologically, we are programmed to fight (perhaps to the death, if necessary) for basic needs (food, water, etc.). So where do these morals, which tell us it's wrong to kill someone for a hamburger, actually come from? How can you say they are rigid, unchanging, and inherent, when they're actually often times contradictory to the biological instincts of all living creatures?
Your rhetorical questions incorrectly presuppose that morals must come from somewhere. Must be given by some entity. No thing or person determines right and wrong. That's what I've argued the whole time. Right and wrong exist regardless of whether people exist. Morality doesn't 'come from' anywhere, because it already is everywhere.
As to your biology example, I'd say it's reductive. There is killing which is morally justifiable (for self-preservation, generally as a last resort). And again, they can be rigid, unchanging, and inherent, because they exist regardless of whether or not people do, so the biology point (though it can be argued further, to a point where it squares with morality) is moot.
I think we fundamentally disagree then. I don't believe that morality just exists and is rigid. That doesn't make sense to me. You literally can't define "right" and "wrong" without the existence of set parameters. Those parameters have to be set by someone. They don't just exist in nature. The only things that are inherent are instincts to fulfill basic needs to live. Morality has zero bearing on those instincts. Morality requires complex thought and cognitive recognition of specific scenarios. Sharks who bite people are not necessarily immoral or amoral. They are sharks swimming through the ocean and succumbing to their instincts. There is no moral code or structure which tells sharks something is right or wrong.
You know when you come home and can tell that your dog has done something wrong. He looks guilty. You discover that he's pooped on the rug for the 3rd time. The only reason the dog knows that pooping on the rug is wrong is because he's been conditioned to that understanding through punishment for earlier episodes of pooping on the rug. A dog does not look guilty the first time it does something we perceive to be wrong. It is only after you have punished it and trained it to know that pooping on the rug is "bad" that it will start to understand it is "wrong". You have just adjusted that dog's moral compass by teaching it pooping on the rug is a punishable offense.
In the same way people are not born with adjusted moral compasses and a rigid set of morals. They are born with needs (food, air, water) and a mechanism to alert capable caretakers that one of their needs is not being met (crying) and we teach them, over time, what we understand to be "right" and "wrong." You don't blame a 3 year old for stealing little Tommy's lunch. You blame the parents for failing to teach the child that stealing little Tommy's lunch is "wrong."
The fact that you're having to consider dogs and toddlers moral agents makes for an awfully weak argument. A dog shitting on the carpet is not morally wrong. It may be breaking a rule, and "bad," but there is no moral question there, so the example is meaningless here. As for the toddler, simply because a person does not have the cognitive function to have an understanding of morality does not mean that morality does not exist there. One can, and many people do, behave immorally without necessarily realizing it's immoral. That's a human flaw, not an argument against natural law.
You're completely missing my point. Don't think about dogs and toddlers specifically, rather, think of the concepts of teaching living beings the definitions we have created for "right" and "wrong." In order for morality to work there has to be clear definitions for "right" and "wrong." Those definitions don't just exist. Morality, conceptually, just can't exist without someone defining the upper and lower bounds. Your argument that morality is inherent and rigid just doesn't make any sense and you have failed to articulate why it makes sense to you. Your comments tend to be snarky and condescending but they don't actually shed any light on why you believe morality is inherent.
you and I just disagree and you're clearly not going to change your stance on the matter so any further comments for either side are futile.
welp...I stand corrected. Sharks, strangely, do have morals
Morality and Justice was my least favorite class I took at VT. Mainly because of the types of arguments seen in this thread.
I haven't seen any arguments in this thread. I have, however, seen a lot of collapsed yellow comments.
Lucky. Given the previous snark, invocations of Hitler and gay marriage, and the fact that I am completely uninterested in the sub-thread basically is a moderator's nightmare.
Is it football season yet?
Sorry dude. Turkey leg?
This thread...
It just has to be said.
I love that a thread thread talking about Harbaugh devolved into an argument about morality. How fitting. Although I have to say some I have just read some of the worst arguments for a certain moral inclination that I have possibly ever heard. I'll let you decide who I'm talking about though...
I am actually about to post some new Harbaugh news that will not make many people happy, stay tuned!
And yes I agree, Fernley really dropped the ball on this one.