Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 07/17/03 6:44pm
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "I love you from the heart of my bottom" on 07/ 9/03 11:03am
>>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.
Still though, there are limits. And psychologists can at least point out the data they interpret so one can check the foundation of their conclusions. You have not done so.
>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.
Well, you certainly are free to speculate, but I would caution about voicing your speculations as if they are confirmed facts. I think you should at least give some observations you base your “mind-reading” conclusion on if you are to present it as something more than mere speculation. That is, if I ask “on what grounds?” you should at least give some semblance of interpretation of listed data, otherwise it seems far too conjectural and pretty groundless.
>>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.
And again I ask the same question: why? Yes, it could conceivable cause problems for society as a whole if society is harmed. But nonetheless why this is something we ought not let to happen is still unclear, a question that so far you seem not to have an answer to. Thus, as of yet it would seem that the nonmalificence principle has no non-circular support in your metaethical belief system. If you have nothing new to add on this, I suppose we should move on.
Also, you may wish to expand it a little further than this, particularly when it comes to the issue of fairness (more later).
>>>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...
Lol. Well, I’m sorry Ben but it is the unfortunate truth.
>>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.
Here is one principle you seem to hold that does not necessary come down to nonmaleficence. Moving on (I’ll explain a little later)...
>>>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.
[snipped some]
>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.
Well, not really. We could all survive as vegetarians.
>I hope we find no _delight_ in eating
>them
I do. Mmm, give me some of those nice juicy flame-broiled hamburgers!
>>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.
Ah, but there is no physical or psychological harm here. So if it’s not nonmalificence or any sociological harm, on what grounds are you going to say it’s unethical?
>I would also say
>that I never thought I'd spend this much time talking
>about sex with animals.
Lol, me neither. But apparently it’s useful in establishing metaethics here.
>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.
Forbidding sex with a corpse is especially interesting. After all, it is not a sentient being. Why should it have rights?
>>>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."
Okay.
>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.
You seem to be pretty accurate here.
>>>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.
Sort of, see the rest of what I wrote for a more complete answer:
>>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.
True, but one could even argue that sex for enjoyment is also very natural in the animal world (many animals can feel pain, why think they can’t feel physical pleasure as well?).
>> 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.
Understandable.
>>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.
I don’t think it is in this case. That it is “natural” for sexual relations to occur between people of the opposite sex is not (I think) being disputed here, even if the “naturalness” of homosexual sex is.
>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?
Well, again see the rest of what I wrote. I agree it is not very precise in dividing the line, but I wanted to at least see their point of view, how the “natural” vs. “unnatural” viewpoint comes into play, even if its flawed/imprecise etc.
>"Natural" simply means it occurs in nature. So
>homosexual sex is natural,
Not very, in part for reasons I stated earlier (apparently you missed/misconstrued them).
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 