It is “logical”, but not “rational”. Many people confuse these concepts. Rational is what starts with the observable, physical reality, applying observations to it, making logical inferences based upon the reality.
There is so much wrong with the above that it requires a thorough thrashing out in order to see the direct relevance to the “gay cake case.” (Pace minkymurph.)
First off, it isn’t true that “rational” means starting with observable, physical reality, applying observations to it, making logical inferences based upon the reality." This better describes what could formally be called “the scientific method” or methodological materialism. The logical error in it is the unsubstantiated presumption that physical reality encompasses all of reality. There is no non-circular way to establish that premise. See
this thorough refutation of that illogic by the Maverick Philosopher.
No, what “rational” means is "acting, making judgments, deciding or drawing conclusions based upon good or substantiated reasons. “Logical” means utilizing the principles of formal logic. Now, since logic is merely a formalized version of reasoning, the difference between “rational” and “logical” is not what you make it out to be.
One more point on “good reasons.” These need not be based ONLY upon “observable, physical reality” until you or someone else demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that physical reality is, indeed, ALL of reality. THAT case hasn’t been made, only assumed, by you.
Getting back to the “gay cake case.” A cursory analysis of the “reasons” anyone would have for supporting gay “marriage” shows that that support relies upon nothing substantial. In fact, the ONLY reason proposed has to do with the “right” of a gay individual to marry who they choose. The question is whether such a “right” can be established. It certainly cannot be based upon your criteria of “observable, physical reality” since “rights” are not the kind of thing that exists in a physical, observable mode.
In fact, the case for gay “marriage” is one founded entirely on the primacy of the will or the “wants” of gay individuals and the notion that people shouldn’t be denied what they want because…well…they want it and someone else shouldn’t interfere with someone getting what they want.
Notice, that position isn’t rational at all BECAUSE it avoids entirely the question of the “good reasons” rational beings ought to have in order to act, choose, judge or believe anything. The endorser of “gay rights” relies entirely on the fact that gay individuals need no good reasons but merely need to demonstrate that they “want” something, absent any reason at all. In fact, asking what reasons anyone would have for wanting gay sex or choosing to “marry” another individual of the same sex is met with perturbation at the very idea that individuals should have to defend their choices because…well… we all have a right to do what we “want.” Meaning, essentially, that if individuals choose to act without good reasons, i.e., irrationally, they have an inalienable right to do so. A position that is neither rational nor logical.
This issue isn’t, then, one of the difference between logic and rationality, but rather whether individuals are morally required to act rationally and defend their choices with good reasons for doing so. Of course, the advocate of morality grounded in subjectivity is claiming the primacy of the individual will over reason and the right of the individual to not have to justify their choices to others BECAUSE those choices are subjective matters and not objectively grounded - thus attempting an end-around on the entire question of rational justification.
The “gay cake” case boils down to a claim that others ought to respect whatever choices are made by some - in this case gay individuals claiming their relationship is a “marriage” when it bears only slight resemblances to what can defensibly be called marriage - even when those choices are demonstrably irrational or arational.
Hopefully, minkymurph, this adds some light to why the thread took such a long and winding road to get back to “gay cakes.”
Can someone tell me how the question I posed at the start of the thread prompted a discussion on when and in what circumstances an act normally considered a crime becomes decriminalized and the existence of God?
The question pertains to whether moral issues can be objectively resolved or whether they are merely subjective and cannot be resolved by reason. This is important because those who share Pallas Athene’s view argue that moral issues need not - and, indeed, cannot, be resolved - which means individual will and desires have precedence over wise and reasoned judgment.
Of course, this is a position that easily convinces those who think with their lower organs; a group, as Pallas Athene observes, is steadily growing in a culture whose mass media, governing bodies and judicial system panders to the view that everyone ought to get what they want when they want it.
So - now we have all aired our views may I suggest a new starting point for discussion?
How about a laissez-faire approach to the economy fosters discrimination?
What, are you trying to derail this thread?
