| Subject: Another attempt to present my point |
Author:
Ben
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 07/ 6/03 4:37pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "That's a straw man and you know it." on 07/ 1/03 10:44pm
>>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.
Perhaps (although I, of course, don’t really go to any church anymore). So you’re saying you’ve never sung any of these songs:
“Victory in Jesus”
“Are You Washed in the Blood?”
“Nothing But the Blood of Jesus”
>>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.
As far as I understand it, many children were had by first cousins and even brothers and sisters to keep the noble line going.
>>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.
It is not necessary to have “psychic powers” to make educated guesses about why people do the things they do. For example, I am not psychic, but I suspect the reasons you are willing to accept flimsy evidence so often is that you have a deep need for your religion to be validated, since it is such a part of your life. Perhaps this is also the reason you seem unable to see what I’m trying to say much of the time, and continually shift the subject to something I’m not saying at all.
>>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.
I didn’t say “it’s obvious why people shouldn’t hurt each other.” I said it’s obvious +why I believe+ people shouldn’t hurt each other. And, along those same lines, it is quite obvious to me why people +believe+ gay sex is immoral. They are afraid of it, they don’t understand it, and their holy book says it’s wrong. I’ve never heard any objective reasons why it’s supposedly immoral. However, I have offered many objective reasons why I see no moral problem with gay sex.
>>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?
(sigh) Go back and re-read my post, or let’s just forget this. It’s a relative wrong, which I’ve explained already. It’s not some universal wrong. In other words, it’s only “wrong” because our society defines it that way.
>>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?
(sigh again) Yes I have explained this. It isn’t “good” for society to survive and thrive. But it’s good as far as you and I are concerned, because it has everything to do with the quality of our lives. So we define it as good. If you would rather define “good” as “anything that causes chaos and the destruction of societies,” feel free.
>>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).
Can you give me some specifics on how these definitions work themselves out?
>>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.
lol. If you say so. I have clearly explained why violating this is wrong… it leads to a breakdown of society. That is a reason. Now you give me a reason why homosexuality is wrong.
>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.
Perhaps. I think our conversations have generally been more about human morality than anything else. The other issues, even those such as cutting down trees, are harder to define. And do remember that I have said my idea of immorality being things that “hurt others unnecessarily” is just part of the definition. Finding a working definition of morality has been very vexing for me, quite honestly, and I’m sure it will be something I refine throughout my life.
I guess I’d put it this way: I think we all operate on certain moral principles that are ingrained in us to the point that they feel “irreducible.” I just don’t think they actually are. I think if we had the capacity to really understand what makes people tick and what makes people feel the way we do, we could understand why we have the moral systems that we do.
>>“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 have no idea how what you just said means anything here. What does the word “natural” mean? And how is anything “meant” for anything else? Animals have homosexual sex. Are they perverse and evil when they do this? My whole point is that to call it “unnatural” makes no sense. Who said these are the “laws of nature”? If sex is only for procreation, then I don’t know anyone who actually lives that way. If sex can be something to be enjoyed, then why should it make any difference where anything goes as long as everyone involved feels good?
Ben
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 