Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 07/ 7/03 12:23am
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "Another attempt to present my point" on 07/ 6/03 4:37pm
>>>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”
I think you're taking some things far too literally. This is all about the Son of God bleeding and dying for humanity. Hence, "blood" being shed is a central theme. But nobody in my church, as far as I know, seriously thinks about drinking or bathing in anyone's (Jesus' or otherwise) blood. You should be careful not to take metaphors as literal.
>>>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.
As far as the culture as a whole was concerned, marrying one's sister was not considered an acceptable act. Cousins are more distant relatives, in this manner you are not totally off the mark.
>>>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
But this sort of thing is based on more speculation and conjecture than any real evidence, not really being in a position to know—unless you have psychic powers. On what grounds, for instance, do you have to think my views and reasons that I've given are incorrect? You've presented almost nothing.
>>>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.
I apologized if I misconstrued you. Nonetheless I wanted to point out that while it may be obvious to you it is not necessarily so obvious to me and to others.
>And, along those
>same lines, it is quite obvious to me why people
>+believe+ gay sex is immoral. They are afraid of it
Again, appears to be speculation and conjecture without revelation of substantiation. On what grounds do you think so? Some intuitive feeling? That's why I made the remark about "psychic powers."
>>>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.
I don't think you've explained this very clearly in your previous post, and I believe this is the problem of our communication. The closest I can get to finding an explanation is this:
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....
It's "relative" in the sense we are focusing on society. Yes, it harms society if nonmalificence is violated, but nonetheless why we should not harm society is still unclear. And again, not harming society is still a form of nonmaleficence.
>>>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.
Some things that affect society as a whole don't necessarily affect us personally. True, we live in society, but not harming society is still a form of nonmaleficence, and why society should not be harmed is still unclear from what you're saying.
And going back to what you’ve said on this issue again:
>>>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.
So violating nonmaleficence is wrong because it leads to a breakdown of society? Unfortunately, this is only a valid justification if “a breakdown of society” is something we ought not to do (i.e. “harming society is wrong”). But to claim that would be an appeal to a form of nonmaleficence. This appears to be circular reasoning, or at least something bordering it. Hence it would still appear to be unjustified.
>>>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?
Well, those specifics are very open to debate. We have many metaethical theories here, ethical relativism and ethical objectivism, cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism etc. I think the definition is very satisfactory as far as veracity goes, but it still suffers from lack of precision, and unfortunately that does not seem to be avoidable in coming up with an agreed upon definition.
>>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.
But then, what is the answer to this problem? What is wrong with a human having sex with animals (assuming you think so)?
Quoting from the post where I brought this up:
The belief: gay sex is unnatural; it's just not something that's supposed to be. I know this point is irreducible, but I believe I may have found a similarity here with your views (I'm going to test that hypothesis here). Something I remembered when I was driving home last night...
>Sex with animals is obviously wrong, since
>animals have no way of giving consent.
Why should that matter? We imprison animals and grind them up for meat--all without their consent. Unless you want to have laws barring meat eating, this does not seem to be a very good reason.
If it's done without the animal's consent, one could perhaps foresee harm to the animals. Are you worried about nonmaleficience principle for animals? Let's ignore the meat eating thing for a moment. What if the animals are given a drug (to dull their senses or whatever) so that no mental or physical harm ever comes to them? Does sex with animals then become morally okay? Or is there something inherently wrong with it?
I think we can reach the point here where nonmaleficence (and it seems we have yet to find a non-circular justification for this principle) is not even the issue, and we have another point of morality we are not able to further reduce. I’m hopeful that pursing this issue will lead to a somewhat better understanding of the point of view regarding certain sexual actions being considered immoral (even if it just leads to points we are unable to reduce).
>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.
I have pondered this possibility as well. A full and satisfactory answer does not appear to be in the near future though. Great philosophical minds have asked this question before we were born, and so far none seem to have such answers.
>>>“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.
But that is the deviation rather than the norm (the substantial majority is between different sexes). In cases like these, the term "natural" can be difficult to define precisely, but I think its meaning in context here is fairly straightforward. Sex of course is used for procreation, and that there are instances where procreation is not the focus is a good point to bring up. Nonetheless, one could still argue that "nature" actually "intends" it to be done via two individuals of the opposite sex (after all, this is how procreation is made). The dividing line is not easy to justify logically though, since some do think it morally wrong to engage in birth control, while others think the line lies a bit beyond elsewhere; it is obviously "natural" for people of the opposite gender to engage in sex but not of the same gender (one point: they do not even have the sexual organs capable of coitus, so it would seem to be "unnatural" or opposed to what "nature intended"). Again, I should again emphasize that I'm playing devil's advocate in the above arguments. I hope you can at least see the point of view here.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 