| Subject: Death to the messenger |
Author:
Ben
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 06/30/03 8:15pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Drawing the line based on disputable moral issues" on 06/30/03 5:38pm
>>You have muddied up a fairly simple issue. The issue
>>is one of consent. If two beings want to do something
>>with their bodies that isn’t hurting anyone else, they
>>should have the right to. In incestuous
>>relationships, the problem is often one of consent…
>
>Ack, I suppose I should have seen this coming. No, I
>was referring to incestuous sexual relations between
>consenting adults.
Okay, so now we’re clear on that. You still have failed to give any objective reasons why “incest” (which is just a word, by the way) is wrong between a father and son who are both of consenting age. Or a mother and daughter, for that matter. It wouldn’t be my choice, but how is it your business if it is not hurting anyone, including them?
>>There is also
>>the genetic issue of sex between members of the same
>>family.
>
>Ah, but what of a father and son (both consenting
>adults)? No babies can be produced here.
I see no moral problem with this. If you do, please explain why (“irreducible morality” is not an acceptable answer).
>>Is it? What if these two brothers are both in their
>>twenties? There is no chance of any genetic problem
>>since they can’t procreate… they can both consent to
>>this… I don’t see a moral issue here.
>
>So do you think we should legalize it? You'd get some
>awfully big confrontation from the public at large.
So what? The public at large isn’t all that thoughtful, in my experience. They are controlled by forces like… ahem… religion (the opiate of the masses). To be honest, I didn’t even know it was illegal for two brothers in their twenties to have sex. Have you ever heard that the government should be involved the least amount possible? When we start regulating what people do in their bedrooms, we are too involved.
>>Sex with animals is obviously wrong, since
>>animals have no way of giving consent.
>
>Well, suppose the animals do give consent (perhaps the
>animal is genetically engineered with sufficient
>intellect; I don't think this will happen but I'm
>bringing this up for sake of argument).
Well, this is useless if it can’t happen. If animals became able to communicate their wants and desires in a way we could understand, a lot more issues than this would come into play. But, going with your example, if an animal could give a meaningful, adult-human kind of consent, then I would see no problem with it. I suspect if an animal could communicate, it wouldn’t be on the maturity level of an adult human.
>>Well, because part of the definition of “moral” is
>>“hurting someone else unnecessarily.”
>
>Well, then why is “hurting someone unnecessarily”
>wrong?
Because this is part of the definition of morality that we, as a society, seem to embrace. If you’re saying there’s no universal way to determine morality, then I wholeheartedly agree. When I talk about morality, I speak in a purely pragmatic way… what helps our society… what helps us function in the world in a meaningful way.
> And besides, what if I feel it's the necessary
>step for me to get candy? Again, the point of
>irreducibility has to be reached somewhere.
Again, you jump to this “irreducibility” like it’s the last train to Chicago. If you feel it’s a necessary step for you to get candy, that’s fine, but we must consider if anyone else is hurt unnecessarily. Most likely, you are hurting the person selling the candy, or someone on up the ladder. Maybe in a very small way, but you are hurting him.
> The
>doctrine of nonmaleficence is not, strictly speaking,
>part of the definition of ethics or morality, even if
>it is the most straightforward ethical principle that
>comes to mind.
I suppose not, but it’s the most meaningful way that I’ve found to think about morality. If you have a better way, please enlighten me. I find that to just say “not hurting anyone” doesn’t work, because sometimes we have to hurt people (e.g., breaking up with a girlfriend who isn’t right for you, etc.) in order to do the right thing.
> Cultural relativism and ethical
>subjectivism, for instance, can throw out
>nonmaleficence in certain situations.
You speak in a lot of generalities, but I need more specifics to really understand what you think.
>>Again, we draw the line at consent, and, in some
>>cases, genetic incompatibility.
>
>So anything goes as long as its between only
>consenting adults (this excludes things like having
>deformed babies etc.)? That's going to be a bit hard
>to swallow with cases like incest etc.
Why? Why on earth do you care what two guys are doing in their bedroom? Who is it hurting? And if it’s not hurting anyone, it’s none of your business!
>>Incidentally, what business is it of yours if a
>>father, age 52, and his son, age 25, decide to have
>>sex in their home?
>
>What business of yours if I steal candy from a baby?
>You aren't affected!
Geez. Are you trying to obfuscate the issue, or what? I have clearly said that if it hurts anyone involved unnecessarily, then it’s wrong. In this case, the baby is obviously being hurt unnecessarily. I didn’t say something isn’t wrong until it affects me personally.
> The baby might be, but what
>business is it of yours if you are not affected? The
>issue is one of morality, that's the business of all
>mankind.
Of course. No one is arguing with you. You’re arguing with a straw man of your own creation.
>>>Pre-marital sex is seen as immoral under conservative
>>>Christianity, but it is not exactly outlawed.
>>
>>Great point! It’s funny how although premarital sex
>>is considered wrong, no one is trying to make it
>>illegal, yet gay sex is such a huge issue. Perhaps
>>homophobia is the real culprit here, and not
>>immorality.
>
>Do you know what homophobia is? I'm not afraid of
>homosexuals nor do I hate them etc., but I do have
>moral disagreements on certain activities.
You didn’t really address the issue of why no one is attacking premarital sex, but everyone is all crazy over homosexuality. To me, this is homophobia, expressed in its different forms. And yes, I do understand what it is, which is why I used the word. It seems that people are afraid of it, since they don’t understand it. Therefore, it’s wrong. I don’t see any real objective moral arguments going on, either in the public hyperconservative drivel, or in your posts. Please prove me wrong.
>>lol. Please explain what makes gay sex “significantly
>>more seriously wrong.”
>
>Hey, don't kill the messenger. I'm just explaining
>points of view here.
Ah, yes. This is the part where Wade backs off and says he’s just explaining someone’s point of view, and not necessarily his own. It’s a convenient way around an argument. As I’ve said before, please explain what you personally think on these issues, and what you’re willing to stand behind.
>>If they’re both of consenting age, we have no right to
>>make laws that govern their behavior.
>
>Most would disagree with you on that issue.
I’m aware of that. Is it your feeling that the majority opinion must be the correct one? That’s twice you’ve brought up the opinion of the majority in response to my points. I’m not trying to win a popularity contest. I’m trying to think for myself about what really makes sense to me.
>Conservative Christians typically believe you have to
>have limits, that one shouldn't just legalize all
>"victimless" crimes.
And this is one reason I’m not a conservative Christian. They seem to want to get into everyone’s business. If something two people are doing truly isn’t hurting anyone else, then it’s none of anyone’s business. If you think it is our business, please explain why without appealing to “irreducibility,” since that argument could be used to defend any random point. I think we should bomb all of Europe. I can’t explain why… it’s just an irreducible fact.
Ben
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 