Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

01/06/2010 10:34:40 AM · #3826

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But now you are all backtracking. Really, in truth, I'm not disappointed at all because I think you are admitting what you naturally feel (the "disappointment" comes because you are a good debater and you got yourself painted in a corner).

I think you are confusing two issues. There is no inconsistency in declaring that there are no universal human rights, while at the same time holding the view that the ethic of reciprocity appears to be universal in humans, likely due to its evolutionary origin.

01/06/2010 10:43:24 AM · #3827

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by chaimelle:
Why are we (the US) trying to be the world police? Is it really any of our business if African nations declare homosexuality wrong? Would we want Russia or China telling us what our laws and/or values should be?

Did you think it was wrong when virtually every country in the world, the US included, spoke out against apartheid?

I'm torn on this. I don't have a problem with stating that we believe something is wrong (apartheid, child labor in China) but how far should we go in trying to bring about a change? Again, I ask, would we have wanted Russia telling us to end discrimination during the 1950's and 60's?

01/06/2010 10:46:55 AM · #3828

Originally posted by chaimelle:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by chaimelle:
Why are we (the US) trying to be the world police? Is it really any of our business if African nations declare homosexuality wrong? Would we want Russia or China telling us what our laws and/or values should be?

Did you think it was wrong when virtually every country in the world, the US included, spoke out against apartheid?

I'm torn on this. I don't have a problem with stating that we believe something is wrong (apartheid, child labor in China) but how far should we go in trying to bring about a change? Again, I ask, would we have wanted Russia telling us to end discrimination during the 1950's and 60's?

You may not have wanted it, but if you were doing wrong, you probably needed to hear it. I take it you don't have a problem with capital punishment for homosexual behaviour, then?

01/06/2010 10:51:07 AM · #3829

I have a problem with it, but I am not sure what we should do about it.

01/06/2010 11:05:25 AM · #3830

Another angle barely mentioned--if a country has a high infant/child mortality rate, a large gay community could be detrimental to the population. I'm not saying this makes capital punishment right, but we cannot judge another country's laws based on our society.

01/06/2010 11:09:24 AM · #3831

Originally posted by Louis:

You may not have wanted it, but if you were doing wrong, you probably needed to hear it. I take it you don't have a problem with capital punishment for homosexual behaviour, then?

Again Louis, your statement makes no sense unless "wrong" has some independent meaning. In relativism the correct quote would be "You may not have wanted it, but if you were doing wrong (to them), you probably needed to hear it". That doesn't make a ton of sense. Why do I need to hear something if someone else considers it to be wrong?

01/06/2010 11:16:34 AM · #3832

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Louis:
You may not have wanted it, but if you were doing wrong, you probably needed to hear it. I take it you don't have a problem with capital punishment for homosexual behaviour, then?

Again Louis, your statement makes no sense unless "wrong" has some independent meaning.

I think part of the reason that you are befuddled by the concept that universal rights don't exist is the application of one set of moral values on another. That's always going to be a problem for someone with a "universalist" viewpoint, because your time will come. Again, I see no inconsistency in applying my moral framework to those that I deem are harmful to others. This is a perfect, and sound, synchronization of a relativist view with an inbred concept of reciprocity.

01/06/2010 11:22:14 AM · #3833

Matthew, I agree with your well written post above. People certainly have a right to grouse about other people under moral relativism, but I don't think people realize that this is all they can really do. Complain. There is no justification in actually doing something about it. No one system can be considered "better" than another. The only distinction is that we prefer one to another, but that's going to be true for everybody and the system each prefers could be diametrically opposed.

Perhaps the problem in communication with myself and people like Shannon is that there appear to be different "strengths" of moral relativism. Wiki lists three (and you'll have to forgive the philosophical jargon):

Descriptive relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts obtain and the same consequences seem likely to arise.
meta-ethical relativism on the other hand, is the semantic and epistemic position that all moral judgments have their origins either in societal or in individual standards, and that no single objective standard exists by which one can assess the truth of a moral proposition.
Normative relativism further still, is the prescriptive or normative position that as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.

I am speaking of Normative relativism and frankly consider it to be the logical conclusion. In other words, people who decide to stop at Descriptive or Meta-ethical relativism, in my opinion, are just not willing to swallow the logical conclusions to the system they have adopted. The cynic would say they just want to be able to tell others what to do, but don't want anybody telling them what to do.

EDIT: Louis was writing while I was, but I enjoy the irony of reading my last sentence above and Louis':

Originally posted by Louis:

Again, I see no inconsistency in applying my moral framework to those that I deem are harmful to others. This is a perfect, and sound, synchronization of a relativist view with an inbred concept of reciprocity.

Message edited by author 2010-01-06 11:24:49.

01/06/2010 11:40:37 AM · #3834

None of these relativistic flavours addresses the condition of reciprocity on which my (personal) moral framework is based.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The cynic would say they just want to be able to tell others what to do, but don't want anybody telling them what to do.

The same can be said of universalists.

Message edited by author 2010-01-06 11:46:40.

01/06/2010 11:52:56 AM · #3835

Man. You guys change your positions more often than I change my socks! I'm a Relativist. I'm a Universalist. There are no basic human rights. We should all adhere to the Golden Rule.

01/06/2010 11:55:14 AM · #3836

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The cynic would say they just want to be able to tell others what to do, but don't want anybody telling them what to do.

The same can be said of universalists.

Untrue. A universalist, caught in wrong action, should be willing to hear how his actions do not meet up to the universal standard of X. If this doesn't happen then the individual just isn't being a good universalist.

Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/06/2010 12:05:07 PM · #3837

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Man. You guys change your positions more often than I change my socks! I'm a Relativist. I'm a Universalist. There are no basic human rights. We should all adhere to the Golden Rule.

Speak for yourself, because you're doing a poor job of speaking for others. Whereas I said (3), I made no mention of anything else, and whereas one might be able to infer (1), (4) never left my lips in any way, shape, or form, and implies that you are more interested in "trapping" people, however back-handedly, than in actually learning what they're all about.

Message edited by author 2010-01-06 12:05:31.

johnnyphoto

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

01/06/2010 12:16:32 PM · #3838

Originally posted by Louis:

and implies that you are more interested in "trapping" people, however back-handedly, than in actually learning what they're all about.

Interesting... I've felt that same way about virtually everyone in this thread. I thought we were all out to trap each other. I haven't gotten the idea that anyone in this thread is remotely interested in learning what another is all about.

01/06/2010 12:31:58 PM · #3839

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Man. You guys change your positions more often than I change my socks! I'm a Relativist. I'm a Universalist. There are no basic human rights. We should all adhere to the Golden Rule.

Speak for yourself, because you're doing a poor job of speaking for others. Whereas I said (3), I made no mention of anything else, and whereas one might be able to infer (1), (4) never left my lips in any way, shape, or form, and implies that you are more interested in "trapping" people, however back-handedly, than in actually learning what they're all about.

I'm not trying to trap you. Honestly I would think that "golden rule" is synonymous with "reciprocity" and took it to mean as such. (wiki says..."The Golden Rule is an ethical code that states one has a right to just treatment, and a responsibility to ensure justice for others. It is also called the ethic of reciprocity."

Message edited by author 2010-01-06 12:33:53.

01/06/2010 12:34:05 PM · #3840

Well... yeah. I thought we all knew that "ethic of reciprocity" = "golden rule". (?) And that this is what is generally considered to have an evolutionary advantage.

Message edited by author 2010-01-06 12:34:40.

01/06/2010 12:36:08 PM · #3841

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I haven't gotten the idea that anyone in this thread is remotely interested in learning what another is all about.

It might seem so at first glance, but there have been some insightful meetings of mind over the years.

01/06/2010 12:46:38 PM · #3842

Originally posted by Louis:

Well... yeah. I thought we all knew that "ethic of reciprocity" = "golden rule". (?) And that this is what is generally considered to have an evolutionary advantage.

I'm taking a step back here because I'm clearly confused and you sound annoyed and I don't want that. Weren't you talking about reciprocity as an ethic we should follow (although you did give a begrudging "if")? If you equate reciprocity with golden rule then I don't get why you said "(4) never left my lips in any way, shape, or form," when (4) was "We should all adhere to the Golden Rule".

See my confusion?

You can IM me if you want to chat it out.

Message edited by author 2010-01-06 12:49:10.

01/06/2010 01:31:24 PM · #3843

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Louis:
Well... yeah. I thought we all knew that "ethic of reciprocity" = "golden rule". (?) And that this is what is generally considered to have an evolutionary advantage.

I'm taking a step back here because I'm clearly confused and you sound annoyed and I don't want that. Weren't you talking about reciprocity as an ethic we should follow (although you did give a begrudging "if")? If you equate reciprocity with golden rule then I don't get why you said "(4) never left my lips in any way, shape, or form," when (4) was "We should all adhere to the Golden Rule".

See my confusion?

You can IM me if you want to chat it out.

I was annoyed because you had me say "we should all adhere". I never said anything like that. I suggested that this ethic is universal in humans, and likely has an origin in evolution. That is a far cry from saying that everyone should act in any particular way.

I do not believe in absolutes of any kind. I do not wish to impose my views or my moral framework directly on anyone. However, this is different from expressing shock at the behaviour of others in the context of my own moral framework, or in desiring change in the behaviour of others based on an ethic that is, to all appearances, a biological imperative.

I am still perfectly comfortable expressing such ideas, while positing that there are no universal conditions of being that humans have a right to. No such rights exist, and no such moral imperatives exist, outside of the context of human beings and human society. The universe is cold and empty, in other words. That doesn't suggest that I shouldn't live in it.

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

01/06/2010 01:41:52 PM · #3844

Well I think you are doing the best you can with a relative framework. It's a tough bed to lie in when you feel you have been wronged (or see someone else is being wronged). You can try to appeal to some sort of reason, but if the antagonist replies, "To hell with you." there really isn't much you can say or be justified in doing. It's the cardinal difficulty with moral relativism.

scarbrd

Leica M10

01/06/2010 01:53:40 PM · #3845

Originally posted by Louis:

I do not believe in absolutes of any kind.

That IS an absolute. :-)

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/06/2010 01:55:37 PM · #3846

Originally posted by Louis:

I do not believe in absolutes of any kind. I do not wish to impose my views or my moral framework directly on anyone. However, this is different from expressing shock at the behaviour of others in the context of my own moral framework, or in desiring change in the behaviour of others based on an ethic that is, to all appearances, a biological imperative.

I am no longer sure what you are saying. Your reply to my earlier post seemed to indicate you thought countries should step in to stop "bad behavior" (ie capital punishment for homosexuals, apartheid) but here you say you do not want to impose your views or moral framework on others. I am trying to understand your position not trap you...

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/06/2010 02:45:04 PM · #3847

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Well I think you are doing the best you can with a relative framework. It's a tough bed to lie in...

But MUCH easier when the universalist is kicked out of the bed.

Message edited by author 2010-01-06 14:50:41.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/06/2010 02:56:53 PM · #3848

Originally posted by chaimelle:

Originally posted by Louis:
I do not believe in absolutes of any kind. I do not wish to impose my views or my moral framework directly on anyone. However, this is different from expressing shock at the behaviour of others in the context of my own moral framework, or in desiring change in the behaviour of others based on an ethic that is, to all appearances, a biological imperative.

I am no longer sure what you are saying. Your reply to my earlier post seemed to indicate you thought countries should step in to stop "bad behavior" (ie capital punishment for homosexuals, apartheid) but here you say you do not want to impose your views or moral framework on others. I am trying to understand your position not trap you...

The entirety of my position is in the portion you quote.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

01/06/2010 03:07:01 PM · #3849

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by chaimelle:

Originally posted by Louis:
I do not believe in absolutes of any kind. I do not wish to impose my views or my moral framework directly on anyone. However, this is different from expressing shock at the behaviour of others in the context of my own moral framework, or in desiring change in the behaviour of others based on an ethic that is, to all appearances, a biological imperative.

I am no longer sure what you are saying. Your reply to my earlier post seemed to indicate you thought countries should step in to stop "bad behavior" (ie capital punishment for homosexuals, apartheid) but here you say you do not want to impose your views or moral framework on others. I am trying to understand your position not trap you...

The entirety of my position is in the portion you quote.

Chaimelle, he's 100% behind speaking out on the issues (in fact, I suspect he feels it's an obligation, in his morality, to do so), but he doesn't think we have a right to attempt to *enforce* our morality on others. I don't see anything in a quick perusal of his answers that can be taken as an endorsement of American intervention overseas.

R.