| Subject: I love you from the heart of my bottom |
Author:
Ben
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 07/ 9/03 11:03am
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Another attempt to get to the bottom of it all." on 07/ 7/03 12:23am
>But nobody in my church, as far as I know,
>seriously thinks about drinking or bathing in anyone's
>(Jesus' or otherwise) blood.
My point exactly.
>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.
I guess you could say the same thing to anyone, including a psychologist who makes conjectures about what someone is actually thinking, even though it isn't what they claim to be thinking. I know I'm not a psychologist, but I have had interactions with strong Christians of various denominations for many years, which I think gives me the right to speculate. I realize I can't read their minds, but I am explaining what I think is going on behind the scenes. Psychic powers not required (though, for the record, I appreciate your faith in my powers).
>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.
I'm sorry it's still unclear to you. I have explained it as best I can. It's not a universal wrong. It's a relative wrong. We perceive it as "wrong" because it causes _us_ problems in the grander scheme of things.
>>(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.
Of course not, but we make our moral codes based on overall things that hurt society, so that when those things hit close to home, we are ready. Now, please realize I do not think people consciously base morality on things like this (here come my "psychic" powers again). In fact, they mix morality up with all sorts of things like religion, but I believe what I am saying to be the true essence of morality. Let's drop this. I've said all I really know to say.
>>Can you give me some specifics on how these
>>definitions [of morality] 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.
Oh... that's... helpful...
>But then, what is the answer to this problem? What is
>wrong with a human having sex with animals (assuming
>you think so)?
Lack of ability to consent.
>>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.
You bring up a good point, and this is a very slippery issue, but let me see if I can explain my view on it. First of all, I'm not entirely certain we _should_ be grinding them up for meat. Because we are animals, I see no problem with our killing and eating other animals as part of the scheme of natural selection, etc., but the way we raise animals like chickens and cows for no purpose but to be our food does seem wrong to me... suffice it to say, I've only been thinking for myself for a couple of years now, and that is an issue I still haven't settled on.
But it is a good point nonetheless, and I need a working answer to your question, so I'll say this: food is necessary for our survival. Sex is not. Therefore, if we, as animals, require sustenance and must eat other animals, then this does not fit into my definition of "hurting unnecessarily." It is, in fact, necessary for us to eat them, with or without their consent. I hope we find no _delight_ in eating them, but we need to eat them in order to live. To have sex with them would be unnecessary, and therefore wrong.
>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 would have to say that a drug couldn't keep a physical reminder from being there. I would also say that I never thought I'd spend this much time talking about sex with animals. For the record, I personally find the subject repugnant.
Morality involves many subtle issues, and you have touched on another one... I would say that a being has a right not to be violated in any way whether it is conscious of this violation or not. This may in some ways violate my admittedly vague definition, but having sex with something's dead body should be considered wrong, I think, because of that being's rights as a living or dead being. I know, it's subtle.
To be honest, I am glad we're having this conversation, because it's forcing me to think through some of the more subtle aspects of morality and ethics. I have been sort of working on a broad definition of morality, but it's good to see how it plays out. I can see why people prefer to get their morals from an authoritative source... it saves a lot of work.
>>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.
Indeed. So perhaps we agree in some sense, on the notion of "irreducibility." Maybe you speak of this concept as the point where we don't have the capability to dig any deeper, and I don't like to call it that, because I feel we _could_ dig deeper if we had the proper tools, and to call something "irreducible" implies that you couldn't go deeper with any tools. Correct me if I'm wrong on your viewpoint on this.
>>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).
Well, my point in saying that is that it occurs in nature.
> 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.
Well, I think it's crucial to bring up. Consider how many human sexual unions are for the purpose of procreation, as opposed to how many are just for enjoyment.
> 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).
One could argue it, but I think it's on shaky ground.
> 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").
The word "obviously" is probably a bit premature, since this is the issue under discussion. Again, what if people are having heterosexual _oral_ sex. The organs in use are not "capable of coitus," so is this wrong? Does "nature" only intend us to procreate, and never to enjoy ourselves?
You seem to be using the word "natural" to mean the same as "normal," which I think is incorrect. Maybe you should say, "Homosexual sex is not the norm." I could agree with that. When you say it's "unnatural," you confuse the very meaning of the word "unnatural." "Natural" simply means it occurs in nature. So homosexual sex is natural, and using condoms is unnatural.
>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.
The thing is, I'm well aware of these points of view already. Again, please present _your_ views on these issues. I'm not interested in hearing your presentation of other people's views. This isn't a debating class. Most of the time, I'm already aware of what other people think on these issues, and since you seem to be thinking that way, I genuinely try to make _you_ see why those views seem wrong to me, only to find, at the end, that you don't believe in them either.
So please, at least in your conversations with me, please present only what _you_ think on the issues at hand. If you set out to present someone else's viewpoint, please say so at the beginning of your post, so I'll know it's not your own. Chances are, if I know you're just presenting someone else's view, I'll read it, but I won't try to really get you to see why it's wrong, because I'll know you probably already are aware of it.
Ben
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 