Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 06/30/03 9:32pm
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "Death to the messenger" on 06/30/03 8:15pm
Hmm, alright I'll try to summarize and round up the disputable points.
>>>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).
For about the same reason you apparently find nonmaleficence. Sorry you can't accept it, but it's the truth: irreducibility. You're going to have to come to this sooner or later in any ethical system.
So I’ll skip to the issue of irreducibility:
>>>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.
This almost seems circular. No harm in our society because we should not harm society? Okay, let’s go to this: why is it wrong to harm society? Or, why is it good to help society? Eventually you’re going to have to come to an irreducible point, a “brute fact” as it were.
And as I have already pointed out, the principle of nonmaleficence is not part of the definition of morality, which brings us to:
>>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.
Okay, but if that’s all you got, you have an irreducible point. Just like me.
>> 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.
Well, if the culture/individual does not share your belief in nonmaleficence, then it is not a moral principle for them at all (under those two views). This was a reply to your apparent claim of nonmaleficence being part of the definition of morality (which it isn’t).
>>>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).
Incestuous sexual relations is an almost universally agreed upon when it comes to cultures, it isn’t just the Christian religion.
>>>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?
No, I’m just trying to demonstrate that “it’s none of your business” is not an inherently good reason to justify the permission of certain actions.
>>>>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.
I kind of did actually. Remember? That homosexuality is a more serious matter? (Again, don’t kill the messenger.)
>>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.
This is the part where Wade says he was just trying to explain points of view that you apparently did not understand before. For instance, take what you said below:
>It seems that people are afraid of it, since they
>don’t understand it. Therefore, it’s wrong.
No, that’s not their reasoning at all as I have tried to show you. You may not like it (again, don’t kill the messenger) but at least get the point of view right before you criticize it.
>>>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?
No. But I want you to remember the status quo, what is and is not considered a “right.” Rights for gay sex may be considered rights in our society, but incestuous sex is not. Also, remember what you said earlier:Because this is part of the definition of morality that we, as a society, seem to embrace. I was given the impression that you considered society to have some relevant factor here, and from your previous post my belief was confirmed to some degree.
Rounding it all up
In both of our ethical belief systems, we both have to come down to irreducible points somewhere along the line. We just disagree on exactly what they are. Suppose we look at this from a deontological basis. Nonmaleficence is one pivotal principle (irreducible perhaps), but I think there are certain moral truths transcend that. Gay sex, sex with animals etc. even if there is no physical harm done, those particular actions are intrinsically morally wrong, a principle in a deontological belief system that cannot be reduced to further axioms (perhaps by appealing to theistic beliefs, but I won’t go into that). Remember that ethics is about what ought to be. How can you determine that? Eventually you will have to come down to irreducible (and sometimes disputable as in our case here) principles. There’s just no way around it.
I do not hate homosexuals, nor do I fear them. I simply have moral disagreements on certain actions. I don’t know that most of those who share my views are necessarily “homophobic” anymore than they are “premarital-phobic.” Clearly homophobia is not a prerequisite to have moral disagreements on this issue, however.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 