Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 07/ 1/03 10:44pm
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "I am god. That's an irreducible point, so don't argue with me." on 07/ 1/03 7:33pm
The title “I am god. That's an irreducible point, so don't argue with me.” is a bit of a straw man, attacking a very extreme position on the relevant concept; and it doesn’t even have anything to do with morality.
There are a lot of things I disagree on, for instance:
>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.
You and I go to very different churches.
>If you look at the way nobility used to
>work, incest was encouraged, rather than frowned upon.
No it wasn't, at least not with close relatives. Was a brother marrying a sister frowned upon? I rest my case.
And...
>Nevertheless, I am not saying they are
>conscious of their homophobia.
Ah, then you must have psychic powers to know what they're thinking and feeling. Sorry, but you need to have some basis for this sort of thing.
But I'll try to stick to the topic.
>>>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.
And its obvious to some that gay sex is immoral.
>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.
Okay, but then it seems to goes back to a form of nonmaleficence again. Why is it wrong for society to break down?
>>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.
But then you haven't really answered the question. Why is it good for society to survive and thrive?
>>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?
We can look to Mr. Dictionary. Granted it may not have the precision we're looking for, but notice that nonmaleficence is not part of it.
>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.
Morality is an ought. Morality pertains to principles about what people and individuals ought to do. Under this definition, theories on morality can exclude nonmaleficence and not be contradictory. Under certain circumstances, some metaethical theories would not require nonmaleficence at all (confer my ethical subjectivist and cultural relativist examples).
>Case in point: even in our conversations, you have
>yet to give me one reason why homosexuality is wrong
And you have yet to give me one reason why any violation of nonmaleficence is wrong (without going back to some form of nonmaleficence). We're in the same boat dude. We have to come to an irreducible point some time.
Yes, you may claim that I'm reaching for one too soon. Well, I can play devil's advocate and say the same thing about your (apparent) irreducible point of a moral principle. Again, we’re in the same boat. The disputable point is which ones to accept, which ones are rational etc.
But perhaps the example I'm using to illustrate what I'm trying to point out is too qualitatively distant. Thus, it may not be easy for one to grasp what I’m trying to say. So I'll try another. What about sex with animals? (Confer my other post where I explain this.) I have a hunch that we get to an irreducible point without using nonmaleficence, and this one has something explicitly to do with sexual morality.
>“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.
I think you misconstrue the argument a little bit. Heterosexual sex is “natural” because of our primal sexual nature of the human race. It is “meant” for two people of the opposite sex, not two people of the same sex. One could claim that one is violating the “laws of nature” in engaging in “unnatural” sexual relations of this sort. (I’m only presenting the argument, I don’t necessarily agree with it; feel free to disagree if you wish.)
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 