Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

11/18/2008 01:24:31 PM · #1027

Ya, I knew we were going to get into it again. I don't know how to get my point across to the three of you so maybe I just won't try. Shannon's argument is tangential because I'm not arguing that outside religion we must be AMORAL, but that the morality is relative. Monkey's can certainly have a moral framework I suppose. The question is whether that framework is somehow better or worse than another.

Louis and Spaz simply disagree. I'd suggest you guys rush your arguments onto wiki's Moral Relativism page because they are lacking a decent critique outside the religious sphere. Your knowledge could help the world of morality!

Maybe we can have more fun by noting the danger in bringing up Kant in a discussion about homosexuality since I think Kant would note such a state was immoral under his "first formulation":
1. Find the agent's maxim (i.e., an action paired with its motivation). Take for example the declaration "I will lie for personal benefit." Lying is the action; the motivation is to fulfil some sort of desire. Paired together, they form the maxim. (I will have sex only with my own gender because I find it more satisfying)
2. Imagine a possible world in which everyone in a similar position to the real-world agent followed that maxim. (Everybody has sex only within their own gender)
3. Decide whether any contradictions or irrationalities arise in the possible world as a result of following the maxim. (The human species fails to procreate)
4. If a contradiction or irrationality arises, acting on that maxim is not allowed in the real world.
5. If there is no contradiction, then acting on that maxim is permissible, and in some instances required.

I'm not saying this is necessarily a valid argument against homosexuality, I'm just noting with a little laugh the danger of bringing Kant up in this thread...

Message edited by author 2008-11-18 13:26:37.

11/18/2008 01:28:02 PM · #1028

Harris is a modern philosopher who deals very nicely with moral relativism and moral absolutes. I don't have his book at my office, but I suppose I could eventually dig up the relevant passages.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

11/18/2008 01:28:49 PM · #1029

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

1. Find the agent's maxim (i.e., an action paired with its motivation). Take for example the declaration "I will lie for personal benefit." Lying is the action; the motivation is to fulfil some sort of desire. Paired together, they form the maxim. (I will have sex only with my own gender because I find it more satisfying)

Careful, your bias is showing! The maxim is "I will have sex only with people I desire." It's almost impossible to have sex otherwise. The maxim actually does apply to the whole world and we've been surviving pretty well with it.

11/18/2008 01:36:56 PM · #1030

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1. Find the agent's maxim (i.e., an action paired with its motivation). Take for example the declaration "I will lie for personal benefit." Lying is the action; the motivation is to fulfil some sort of desire. Paired together, they form the maxim. (I will have sex only with my own gender because I find it more satisfying)

Careful, your bias is showing! The maxim is "I will have sex only with people I desire." It's almost impossible to have sex otherwise. The maxim actually does apply to the whole world and we've been surviving pretty well with it.

Yes, I thought about that maxim. I'm not an expert enough in Kantian philosophy to know if you are allowed to look at subsets within a maxim. The above maxim only works if the majority of people are heterosexual. Again, I'm not saying it's particularly valid, but it's interesting.

11/18/2008 01:39:13 PM · #1031

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Monkey's [sic] can certainly have a moral framework I suppose. The question is whether that framework is somehow better or worse than another.

The real question is whether it's any different.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Imagine a possible world in which everyone in a similar position to the real-world agent followed that maxim...

Oooh... and imagine a possible world where the only permissible food is fortune cookies, or for a more serious example, one in which every human is either male or female. You might as well imagine a world ruled by giant carnivorous smurfs because in the real world such absolutes do not exist, and that variety is the very engine that drives evolution. Differences don't have to be beneficial or lead to anything whatsoever to naturally exist. The only question is whether we can tolerate those differences.

This is literally no different than discriminating against a group of people who prefer redheads or like anchovies on their pizza. They're adults, and not harming anyone with their preference.

Message edited by author 2008-11-18 13:51:37.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

11/18/2008 01:42:16 PM · #1032

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Again, I'm not saying it's particularly valid, but it's interesting.

So is the science of comic books.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

11/18/2008 01:51:14 PM · #1033

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

.

Louis and Spaz simply disagree. I'd suggest you guys rush your arguments onto wiki's Moral Relativism page because they are lacking a decent critique outside the religious sphere. Your knowledge could help the world of morality!

I feel no obligation to aid a webpage which can be edited by anyone, knowledgable or not, which may or may not be accurate and/or true. I have enough problems with religious bigotry as it is.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

11/18/2008 01:52:22 PM · #1034

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Monkey's [sic] can certainly have a moral framework I suppose. The question is whether that framework is somehow better or worse than another.

The real question is whether it's any different.

Well, exactly. Dahkota may assert that the monkey's moral framework isn't as good as her own. I need to know why.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

11/18/2008 01:54:05 PM · #1035

Originally posted by posthumous:

Careful, your bias is showing! The maxim is "I will have sex only with people I desire." It's almost impossible to have sex otherwise.

Two words: Beer goggles.

Of course, it could be argued that the lack of desire was suppressed by the effects of alcohol...

11/18/2008 01:55:41 PM · #1036

So because I have forgotten the particular argument offered by Shannon, Spaz, and Louis. I'd love to hear each discuss the following situation. We'll try to keep it as theoretical as possible so as not to introduce any distraction.

Person A asserts that "Moral action X is wrong". Person B comes along and disagrees. "Moral action X is NOT wrong" (you are welcome to make X as simple or complex, situational or absolute as you like but don't introduce a specific example in your argument). What I would like to hear from each of you is your idea of how Person A goes about convincing person B that his view is, in fact, incorrect. Dahkota can play too please.

Message edited by author 2008-11-18 13:57:28.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

11/18/2008 02:02:01 PM · #1037

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Person A asserts that "Moral action X is wrong". Person B comes along and disagrees. "Moral action X is NOT wrong." What I would like to hear from each of you is your idea of how Person A goes about convincing person B that his view is, in fact, incorrect.

It doesn't really matter how, or even IF, one can convince the other. They both hold opinions, nothing more, and both should be allowed to believe what they like as long as it doesn't harm others or infringe upon their rights.

tate

Apple iPhone 15 Pro

11/18/2008 02:02:44 PM · #1038

I know I wasn't asked to play. But why does it matter? What does matter is whether Moral action X affects person B in a negative way - or for that matter, in any way at all.

You can then insert anything as X and go from there.

EDIT---as I was writing this Scalvert was also. Sorry.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What I would like to hear from each of you is your idea of how Person A goes about convincing person B that his view is, in fact, incorrect. Dahkota can play too please.

Message edited by author 2008-11-18 14:03:32.

11/18/2008 02:18:45 PM · #1039

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Person A asserts that "Moral action X is wrong". Person B comes along and disagrees. "Moral action X is NOT wrong." What I would like to hear from each of you is your idea of how Person A goes about convincing person B that his view is, in fact, incorrect.

It doesn't really matter how, or even IF, one can convince the other. They both hold opinions, nothing more, and both should be allowed to believe what they like as long as it doesn't harm others or infringe upon their rights.

Well, great questions. You are stating Moral Relativism (almost(*)). This isn't bad. You don't have to worry that if I somehow point out we are all talking Moral Relativism that somehow I've won the argument about homosexuality. That is far from the case. Dahkota, however, was saying some things are absolutely wrong no matter what you believe. I just wondered how she got there because I think to state something like that requires a supreme being. You guys jumped on me saying that's wrong, but now frankly you (Shannon here) are dodging the question and refusing to answer.

(*) I note your qualification "doesn't harm others or infringe upon their rights". What if we make that statement equivalent to Moral action X? Person B now disagrees with it. How do you show him they are wrong to ignore such a moral position?

11/18/2008 02:22:50 PM · #1040

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What I would like to hear from each of you is your idea of how Person A goes about convincing person B that his view is, in fact, incorrect.

I don't believe there's a requirement to convince anyone of anything. Maybe you mean to ask how one goes about demonstrating moral absolutes? And more specifically, how one does so without inferring gods?

11/18/2008 02:23:34 PM · #1041

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

(*) I note your qualification "doesn't harm others or infringe upon their rights". What if we make that statement equivalent to Moral action X? Person B now disagrees with it. How do you show him they are wrong to ignore such a moral position?

In a dictatorship, the person in power simply eliminates the other guy. Here in the U.S., we send it to the Supreme Court and hope they do their jobs.

11/18/2008 02:23:41 PM · #1042

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What I would like to hear from each of you is your idea of how Person A goes about convincing person B that his view is, in fact, incorrect.

I don't believe there's a requirement to convince anyone of anything. Maybe you mean to ask how one goes about demonstrating moral absolutes? And more specifically, how one does so without inferring gods?

Well exactly. You just told me it could be done so I want to know how.

11/18/2008 02:26:05 PM · #1043

Originally posted by scalvert:

And if Person A and B are from the US and China? The Supreme Court doesn't hold sway there. I'd also argue that a few people above (I think Paul) mentioned that the Supreme Court is concerned with the legality of something, not the morality.

11/18/2008 02:31:45 PM · #1044

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What I would like to hear from each of you is your idea of how Person A goes about convincing person B that his view is, in fact, incorrect.

I don't believe there's a requirement to convince anyone of anything. Maybe you mean to ask how one goes about demonstrating moral absolutes? And more specifically, how one does so without inferring gods?

Well exactly. You just told me it could be done so I want to know how.

In my view, very simply. There is only one moral absolute: suffering is abhorrent. Every nuance of morality proceeds from this. To put it very simply, that which causes suffering is immoral, that which abates suffering is moral. Since we're talking about the human sphere, this doesn't mean to suggest that destructive natural forces like hurricanes are immoral. We also don't need to confuse the abatement of suffering with hedonism, so we don't need to argue that shooting heroin is moral. We don't need gods for any of this, since we are strictly talking about humans' ability to cause or ameliorate suffering.

11/18/2008 02:32:45 PM · #1045

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

And if Person A and B are from the US and China? The Supreme Court doesn't hold sway there.

When in Rome, GA or Beijing, you follow the existing laws or risk punishment.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'd also argue that a few people above (I think Paul) mentioned that the Supreme Court is concerned with the legality of something, not the morality.

Whether it's "wrong to ignore such a moral position" is another opinion, and basically governed by law.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/18/2008 02:35:33 PM · #1046

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
(*) I note your qualification "doesn't harm others or infringe upon their rights". What if we make that statement equivalent to Moral action X? Person B now disagrees with it. How do you show him they are wrong to ignore such a moral position?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And if Person A and B are from the US and China? The Supreme Court doesn't hold sway there.

When in Rome, GA or Beijing, you follow the existing laws or risk punishment.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'd also argue that a few people above (I think Paul) mentioned that the Supreme Court is concerned with the legality of something, not the morality.

Whether it's "wrong to ignore such a moral position" is another opinion, and basically governed by law.

So you were probably the least directly against my idea that absolute morality is dependent on a Supreme Being, so I won't blame you. But nothing you talk about here smacks of any absolute morality whatsoever. Is that your position? It's all relative but within our own society we can look to the Supreme Court to dictate our own absolute morality?

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

11/18/2008 02:38:08 PM · #1047

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Let me take a step back. I actually believe in an absolute morality, but that is only theoretically possible within a religious framework. Read the Wiki on moral relativism. Actually it's one of the longest wiki's I've seen so I won't blame you if you don't read the whole thing. One takehome is to note the only section critical of the idea comes from the religious sphere. Because I'm trying to keep religion out of my arguments on this thread I can actually take advantage of that fact and argue moral relativism because it is what is left when all arguments are secular.

With regard to the Wiki, that is an okay source of information. However, after getting a degree in Philosophy, with 8 classes in various ethics and morality, I think I'm a little beyond being caught up by the length of the article. Additionally, I think you err in your idea that religion is required for an absolutist form of morality. That is the position you argue from, so it is the one with which you are most comfortable. Kant was fairly secular and an absolutist, as was Hobbes.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If I push you on the simple idea that "killing is always wrong", does that hold for ants? Are they subject to moral absolutes like they are subject to physical absolutes like gravity? And if killing out of self-defense is "wrong" but acceptable because it's "less wrong", then what does "wrong" even mean?

I didn't say killing was wrong. I said killing SOMEONE was immoral. Looking across cultures and moral systems, one will find that most all agree that killing animals is not morally wrong. The differences you will find are in justification. In Korea, it is okay to kill a dog for food. In the US, it is not because it is a pet. However, it is okay to kill a deer. This is not moral relativism, this is situational ethics. Because we give dogs a different status than deer, we can justify killing or not killing them.

'Wrong but acceptable' is different from 'less wrong.' You are stuck in a utilitarian way of viewing things - through their ends and the amount of good promoted. Killing one person instead of another because of circumstance is not 'less wrong,' but you may be more justified in doing so - a completely different topic.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Kant and Hobbes both believed in universal absolutes, but they did because they both believed in a creator (leaving out whether it was Christian or otherwise). Once again, absolute morality is only theoretically possible when we postulate a creator.(*) IF the universe was created and IF the creator has an interest in morality then the moral values of the creator can be looked at as the moral authority for our universe. All moral frameworks can be judged by the absolute measuring stick of the creator's moral values (like having the official meter bar in France for judging how accurate your own personal meter stick is).

Believing in a creator does not preclude secularism just as it does not promote religion. Additionally, your statement implies that there could be no morality before the belief in a god nor without a belief in a god unless that morality is relative. I disagree. It is possible to have objective discoverable moral truth without a god just as we have objective discoverable physical truth about the universe.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

For indirect support of moral relativism look at the criticism on the wiki and then look at the criticism for moral rationalism or deontological ethics. The criticisms for the latter two seem much more robust than for the former.

(*) This is theoretical. Practically we wind back up with moral relativism because there are competing arguments for what the creator's values are in specific. Islam claims to know, Christianity claims to know, Hinduism claims to know, etc. Still, the point is it is theoretically possible.

As I stated, been there done that. Wikipedia is great for a simple, melted down, easy to digest, answer. You wind up at moral relativism because you believe morality comes from religion rather than is the creator of religion, which is the view I hold.

11/18/2008 02:39:25 PM · #1048

Originally posted by Louis:

Well I don't think this is a bad moral framework (although it DOES have issues. Suffering leads to growth. A life without suffering may not produce much.), but my question is IF someone disagree with that framework and says "all morality does not proceed from judging the amount of suffering" how do you respond? How do you say, "yes, it does"?

11/18/2008 02:42:58 PM · #1049

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

you were probably the least directly against my idea that absolute morality is dependent on a Supreme Being

What on earth ever gave you that idea?

Originally posted by scalvert:

A basic sense of right and wrong does NOT require religion.

Monkeys have a sense of morality. People with no exposure to any particular religion understand that killing people is wrong (though sometimes necessary). Absolute Morality is not and CANNOT require a Supreme Being. It only requires evolution as a social animal, and with that the need for cooperation and consideration, basically expressed as Louis just described.

Message edited by author 2008-11-18 14:44:16.