| Subject: I am god. That's an irreducible point, so don't argue with me. |
Author:
Ben
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 07/ 1/03 7:33pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Disputable points...irreducible?" on 06/30/03 9:32pm
>Hmm, alright I'll try to summarize and round up the
>disputable points.
Yeah, as usual, we’re wading into a greater time commitment than I can really make. I too will try to make my points concise and perhaps sum up what I need to say. I think, in most ways, I have already said all I have to say on these matters, so it shouldn’t take too long.
>>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.
Well, yeah, but I think it’s obvious why I believe people shouldn’t hurt each other. It breaks down the world in which we’re all trying to live and be happy. I’m asking for a similar reason from you. I am not saying I think it’s wrong to hurt someone because it “just is.” I’m saying it’s wrong because it breaks down society. I personally value society because I live in it. Now, I freely admit that the survival of our society may not be useful to the universe in any way, and there is no universal moral law that says it’s wrong for people to hurt each other, but within the framework in which you and I live and function, it is important that people abide by certain rules.
Therefore, stealing is wrong. It hurts someone unnecessarily. Rape is wrong. It hurts someone who doesn’t want to be hurt. But I fail to see how a father having sex with a 22 year old son is wrong. Please understand that I do not personally find this very appealing, but I’m trying to think outside what I personally find appealing. I’m not sure you’re doing the same. Honestly, I think a lot of this comes down to people’s personal preferences, and not to any real moral issues.
>So I’ll skip to the issue of irreducibility:
Again, methinks you skip too soon.
>>>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.
No. You keep saying that, but it’s not true. There is nothing irreducible about understanding that I am part of a society, and I realize that in order for that society to survive and thrive, we must have laws which prevent people from hurting each other. I have said over and over that this is a relative good, and not some universal good. I don’t see any evidence for universal goods (although I need to read a book a friend keeps recommending on the matter which could very well change my mind). So I do not think it’s “good” to help society except in a relative way. But within that relative framework, I find it very important and good.
>And as I have already pointed out, the principle of
>nonmaleficence is not part of the definition of
>morality, which brings us to:
So who defines morality? I think it’s a very important part of the definition. Please submit your definition of morality. And explain why your definition is better than mine.
>>>So do you think we should legalize [father/son sex]? 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.
So what? I said “forces like religion.” Not “religion only.” There are many forces which cause the average person to think what he thinks, but those forces usually don’t involve a lot of rational thought. Incest is looked upon as wrong for various reasons. I suspect a lot of it has to do with simple genetics. If you look at the way nobility used to work, incest was encouraged, rather than frowned upon. Somewhere along the way, people started to realize that babies were coming out all deformed from these sexual unions. I suspect that as time went on, people forgot why incest was wrong… they just knew that it seemed wrong. I think people tend to go with their “gut feelings” rather than really thinking things through.
It reminds me of the concept of “blood” in the Christian religion. It has its roots in animal sacrifice long, long ago, when people used to offer goats and such up to God to cleanse their sins. Nowadays, people sing about being bathed in blood and even pretend to drink blood in church, and think nothing of it. It’s just part of the church culture now. No one ever thinks about how weird it is to bathe in blood.
>>>>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.
We’re not talking about “permission” of actions. Everything should start out as permissible, and then we should work toward making laws against things that are obviously wrong. You seem to think everything should be illegal except what we give people permission to do.
And you still didn’t explain how your question flowed from the point I was making. The question you asked made it look as if you clearly didn’t understand that I had said things are wrong that hurt anyone involved. The baby, in that case, would be unnecessarily hurt by having something taken from it, so that would be 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.
>
>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.
Okay, point conceded. You were speaking on their behalf. Nevertheless, I am not saying they are conscious of their homophobia. I know that, like so many other things in Christianity, people have thought out good answers to explain why they think the way they decided to think long before thinking through the issues. I think most of their moral objections come from a fear of homosexuality and a lack of understanding rather than a real moral objection. Case in point: even in our conversations, you have yet to give me one reason why homosexuality is wrong, other than this “irreducible” stuff. No one can give any objective reason why homosexuality is wrong, because there isn’t one. Here are a few I’ve heard:
“It’s not natural”… this is funny, since “natural” should mean that everything involved occurs in nature. Homosexual sex can take place without any unnatural objects being involved. When someone puts on a condom, that’s not “natural.”
“It doesn’t produce children”… this assumes that every time you have sex, it’s for the purpose of having children. Unless people are willing to argue that, then sex is obviously useful for pleasure, and not just for making babies.
“Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”… lol.
Hopefully, you have reasons better than these, but I suspect you don’t have any real reasons except what feels right or wrong to you, or perhaps the Bible (written by people that it didn’t feel right to).
>>>>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.
Well, this is true. But I am working toward an understanding of morality which surpasses society’s understanding of it. In other words, when defining morality (the context of the quote you listed), we have to look at society’s view on the matter, but we are not necessarily limited to it.
In light of this, I will alter what I said before… I think that “hurting someone unnecessarily” is an important part of the definition of “immoral” because it is an important factor in helping societies to function and people in those societies to be safe and happy. That is the goal I’m working toward… something is immoral when it causes people to be harmed. Apart from that, I see no reason to label things as “wrong.”
>In both of our ethical belief systems, we both have to
>come down to irreducible points somewhere along the
>line.
No we don’t.
>We just disagree on exactly what they are.
No, we disagree that there are even such irreducible points. You keep trying to shove the issue over, but I can’t let you. Obviously you think there are irreducible points, but don’t drag me into it.
>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,
Bah. Sex with animals is wrong because they can’t give consent. Gay sex is fine because people involved can give consent. The way you argue, you could prove or disprove anything, because you aren’t offering objective reasons. I could use your logic and say being a Christian is wrong because it “just is.” I offer objective reasons why I think certain things are right or wrong. Until you join me, you are just expressing what you feel is wrong, and not explaining something that can be agreed upon by an impartial audience.
>I do not hate homosexuals, nor do I fear them. I
>simply have moral disagreements on certain actions.
And what are those moral disagreements again? I must have missed them.
I
Ben
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 