Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

01/06/2010 06:45:17 PM · #3876

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Well, you asked for any right. :) There is, of course, always an interface between academic and practical application which when examined in extremis will show all sorts of trouble (as we perfectly saw during the Bush administration with the whole "what constitutes torture" argument), but that is going to always exist and we should not lose the forest from the trees.

My question to you (or to a relativist if you aren't one), is this: Do you think a society (or an individual) has the authoritative right to declare that torture is, in fact, a moral choice which is available to them? And if they do decide this, should that new system (as bizarre as it sounds to you or I) be considered as legitimate as our own which frowns on such an act? Note I'm not asking whether societies or individuals ever participate in torture (because the answer there is obviously yes), but can they do so with as much moral legitimacy as someone who does not?

I am a neither - I believe 'moral codes' are human constructs created to serve the society within which they exist. And no, its not a relativism - that would imply that I believe some are right and some are wrong.

Societies don't 'declare' that torture is a moral choice; they just do it, such as the US actions in Gitmo. the US justified it as a utilitarian method of solving a problem - it is best for the majority of the citizens if a few people to have to suffer. And, under a utilitarian based moral code, they may be correct. So yes, morally, torture can be justified, depending on the moral framework within which it occurs. Is this framework correct? Its not my judgment call. I just like to watch.

01/06/2010 06:46:21 PM · #3877

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You could try this article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It has the crazy idea that Universalism is also interested in Human Rights.

Human Rights

I'll give you a preview: The origins and development of the theory of human rights is inextricably tied to the development of moral universalism.... Human rights rest upon moral universalism and the belief in the existence of a truly universal moral community comprising all human beings.

So that I understand your point here, please point me to a universal right. Any right will do.

No one should be subjected to torture.

What is your source for this information?

God. Rational thought. The Universal Bill of Human Rights. Evolution. I'll let you pick.

01/06/2010 06:49:05 PM · #3878

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Well, you asked for any right. :) There is, of course, always an interface between academic and practical application which when examined in extremis will show all sorts of trouble (as we perfectly saw during the Bush administration with the whole "what constitutes torture" argument), but that is going to always exist and we should not lose the forest from the trees.

My question to you (or to a relativist if you aren't one), is this: Do you think a society (or an individual) has the authoritative right to declare that torture is, in fact, a moral choice which is available to them? And if they do decide this, should that new system (as bizarre as it sounds to you or I) be considered as legitimate as our own which frowns on such an act? Note I'm not asking whether societies or individuals ever participate in torture (because the answer there is obviously yes), but can they do so with as much moral legitimacy as someone who does not?

I am a neither - I believe 'moral codes' are human constructs created to serve the society within which they exist. And no, its not a relativism - that would imply that I believe some are right and some are wrong.

Societies don't 'declare' that torture is a moral choice; they just do it, such as the US actions in Gitmo. the US justified it as a utilitarian method of solving a problem - it is best for the majority of the citizens if a few people to have to suffer. And, under a utilitarian based moral code, they may be correct. So yes, morally, torture can be justified, depending on the moral framework within which it occurs. Is this framework correct? Its not my judgment call. I just like to watch.

Well, frankly I'm glad not everybody in the world is like you. You guys are so spineless and namby pamby. You just like to watch when our country is justifying torture? I'm guessing you wouldn't have been a lot of help in Germany in 1939 either. (Sorry if that's harsh, but the attitude is chilling to me.)

yanko

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

01/06/2010 07:01:55 PM · #3879

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You could try this article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It has the crazy idea that Universalism is also interested in Human Rights.

Human Rights

I'll give you a preview: The origins and development of the theory of human rights is inextricably tied to the development of moral universalism.... Human rights rest upon moral universalism and the belief in the existence of a truly universal moral community comprising all human beings.

So that I understand your point here, please point me to a universal right. Any right will do.

No one should be subjected to torture.

What is your source for this information?

God. Rational thought. The Universal Bill of Human Rights. Evolution. I'll let you pick.

If I wanted to pick I wouldn't have bothered to ask. I should have known your answer would be God. I guess it would be pointless to ask a follow up like exactly how many universal rights exists and did God put them on a tablet somewhere to communicate this to human beings like he felt was needed with the Ten Commandments?

Message edited by author 2010-01-06 19:02:38.

01/06/2010 07:03:39 PM · #3880

Originally posted by yanko:

It would be pointless because you wouldn't be listening anyway.

I'm pretty amused at the prospect that it seems pretty self-evident to you that gay marriage should be allowed but it isn't clear to you at all that torture is universally wrong. You may want to work on that a bit.

Message edited by author 2010-01-06 19:05:39.

01/06/2010 07:03:45 PM · #3881

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

My statement with regard to watching was referring specifically to arguments over the validity, truth and value of various moral frameworks. Not torture. Please forgive me if that was unclear. I believe in one thing - treat life as you wish it would treat you (ALL life). You want to call it a moral framework, fine. Had I been in Gitmo or Germany, I would have risked and probably lost my life trying to help the people who needed it. So please don't call me namby pamby because I don't demand the same of you.

01/06/2010 07:07:01 PM · #3882

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Well, frankly I'm glad not everybody in the world is like you. You guys are so spineless and namby pamby. You just like to watch when our country is justifying torture? I'm guessing you wouldn't have been a lot of help in Germany in 1939 either. (Sorry if that's harsh, but the attitude is chilling to me.)

My statement with regard to watching was referring specifically to arguments over the validity, truth and value of various moral frameworks. Not torture. Please forgive me if that was unclear. I believe in one thing - treat life as you wish it would treat you (ALL life). You want to call it a moral framework, fine. Had I been in Gitmo or Germany, I would have risked and probably lost my life trying to help the people who needed it. So please don't call me namby pamby because I don't demand the same of you.

OK. Misunderstanding. I retract my statement. I'm happy you would be willing to stand up for what is Right when push came to shove. Now if I can get everybody else in line, we'll be good. :)

Message edited by author 2010-01-06 19:07:13.

01/06/2010 07:08:03 PM · #3883

I'm off. You've all been great! Tip your servers!

yanko

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

01/06/2010 07:17:46 PM · #3884

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:
If I wanted to pick I wouldn't have bothered to ask. I should have known your answer would be God. I guess it would be pointless to ask a follow up like exactly how many universal rights exists and did God put them on a tablet somewhere to communicate this to human beings like he felt was needed with the Ten Commandments?

It would be pointless because you wouldn't be listening anyway.

I'm pretty amused at the prospect that it seems pretty self-evident to you that gay marriage should be allowed but it isn't clear to you at all that torture is universally wrong. You may want to work on that a bit.

What's amusing is you continue to put words in my mouth. How about first asking what my view is on torture instead of just assuming what it is. I know that's difficult when your hammering away at strawmen.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/06/2010 07:55:51 PM · #3885

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So to take the example above, if I believe torture is wrong. I am no different than someone who believes torture is not wrong? It's just a matter of personal interpretation. There is no undisputed truth that torture is wrong? It's up for discussion?

Correct. I happen to think that torture is wrong, too, but it's a personal opinion just like yours. Someone else who believes torture could save many by harming few would disagree with us, and neither position is undisputed truth. It's up for discussion.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

01/06/2010 08:37:48 PM · #3886

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

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.

I'm not sure that this is quite true. People and societies will presumably still act in their own interests and in accordance with their own morality, and by so doing will influence the outlier.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

01/06/2010 09:49:58 PM · #3887

Originally posted by Melethia:

So. If I am hired by someone to create art at their request, would I not be then obligated to do so regardless of my personal views?

Originally posted by scalvert:

Refusing service amounts to saying, "We don't serve your kind here."

No it doesn't. There are many ways to refuse service that aren't discrimination. I got really good at picking out whiners and cheapskates before I even made appointments to get their cars worked on.....is that discrimination? Maybe, but if I assess someone who it is patently obvious to me by their behaviors (I.E., they start off with asking about discounts for cash, can you treat me special, can I buy my own parts and bring them 'cause I have a buddy....) that make it obvious that it won't pay to put up with their grief, I could always find a way to discourage them. It's a survival thing. One way was to tell them that as a rule, my work cost 25-50% more than my competitors, and my labor rate was higher.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Someone said earlier that this is what we've come to: punishing people for being honest.

I'm not advocating discrimination, but barring the example that someone put forth about the gay couple that couldn't get a room, a meal, or a tank of gas in some small town, businesses do have a right to filter their clientele, within reason, because the working relationship that must be established in some fields is the most important part of the transaction. If this woman was uncomfortable with the couple, especially such that it would have compromised the quality of her business output, then she had the right to turn them away for that reason in and of itself. The fact that she said what she did was just stupid.

The shoe goes the other way, too......get too picky, you won't have business. I've seen businesses go both ways. A friend of mine works 65 hours a week, and doesn't make squat 'cause he's too nice of a guy and doesn't charge enough. I knew another guy who was so contemptible to deal with that his restaurant business didn't even make it a year......you could drive or walk by it any time of the day or night and it was a ghost town.......everyone in town knew he was a jerk.

If you're going to run a business, you damn sure better learn how to deal with the public in such a manner as to not alienate yourself. It's too easy to do, and it'll be the death of your business. You have to use your head and learn, quickly, from your mistakes.

I got a dollar says that woman's photography business is done.

Message edited by author 2010-01-06 21:53:07.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/06/2010 10:07:25 PM · #3888

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Refusing service amounts to saying, "We don't serve your kind here."

No it doesn't. There are many ways to refuse service that aren't discrimination. I got really good at picking out whiners and cheapskates before I even made appointments to get their cars worked on.....is that discrimination?

You left out the qualifying part of my postâ�� "Now there might be legitimate reasons for refusal (requiring shoes or a shirt, for example), but they must apply to everyone rather then excluding a class of people." What you're doing is excluding people on an individual (business-related) basis because they might not pay, etc., NOT because they belong to a particular class. If someone is being rowdy in a restaurant or refuses to pay, you could toss them out on individual merit, but you can't do it just because they're Italian or Muslim.

Message edited by author 2010-01-06 22:26:42.

01/06/2010 11:07:55 PM · #3889

Originally posted by dahkota:

I'm just speaking conversationally now, so you can respond or not. (What I'm saying is I'm off the clock. :)) Anyway, I think more evidence for the universally accepted principle that torture is wrong comes from exactly your example. If you look at the arguments that were had at Gitmo, it wasn't that Alberto Gonzales wrote a memo defending torture because it would allow for some greater good (a utilitarian argument) but rather he wrote a memo arguing that we were not committing torture. The distinction is, I think, very important. Waterboarding wasn't an evil justified by a greater good, but rather, it was argued, it wasn't evil (ie. torture) to start with. Now we can easily disagree with this, but the intent of the arguer is what I find interesting. They already knew torture was wrong, but they weren't committing it.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/07/2010 12:37:49 AM · #3890

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If you look at the arguments that were had at Gitmo, it wasn't that Alberto Gonzales wrote a memo defending torture because it would allow for some greater good (a utilitarian argument) but rather he wrote a memo arguing that we were not committing torture.

That's not a moral argument, it's a legal one. Gonzales had to argue that we weren't committing torture because it's against U.S. law and the Geneva Convention. However, the intent was specifically to allow the administration to torture for the greater good by pretending that some harsh interrogation techniques didn't really qualify (even though the U.S. had considered them torture in the past).

01/07/2010 02:14:58 AM · #3891

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

This goes back to the second question I asked of you, "Who defines torture?" If a universal right is redefined to suit immediate purposes, does it not become relativistic?

01/07/2010 02:14:58 AM · #3892

and again...

Message edited by author 2010-01-07 02:16:29.

01/07/2010 02:15:54 AM · #3893

why does that happen? :)

01/07/2010 11:57:51 AM · #3894

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm just speaking conversationally now, so you can respond or not. (What I'm saying is I'm off the clock. :)) Anyway, I think more evidence for the universally accepted principle that torture is wrong comes from exactly your example. If you look at the arguments that were had at Gitmo, it wasn't that Alberto Gonzales wrote a memo defending torture because it would allow for some greater good (a utilitarian argument) but rather he wrote a memo arguing that we were not committing torture. The distinction is, I think, very important. Waterboarding wasn't an evil justified by a greater good, but rather, it was argued, it wasn't evil (ie. torture) to start with. Now we can easily disagree with this, but the intent of the arguer is what I find interesting. They already knew torture was wrong, but they weren't committing it.

This goes back to the second question I asked of you, "Who defines torture?" If a universal right is redefined to suit immediate purposes, does it not become relativistic?

Only at the edges. I mean, sure, we can quibble about whether this is exactly torture or that, but we all have a good feel over what constitutes torture. Like I said earlier, there is always an interesting interface between academic discussion and practical application. I disagree with Shannon's assertion that Alberto's memo was purely legal because we legally outlawed torture explicitly because we felt it was immoral. What other reason would there be to do so? So, yes, the memo was legal, but it got at moral questions.

Another way to look at it is to ask yourself if we took a hundred people from various places in the world and asked them to define torture, do you think the answers would be more similar than each other or more different? My contention is while they wouldn't be exactly the same, they would be very similar.

I also wanted to point out that universal ethics need not be absolute. Although I picked a prinicple (for ease) that is nearly absolute (ie. torture is always wrong), I didn't mean to infer that all univeral ethics need to be absolute in their application. If a Utilitarian makes the argument that torture could be justified, he is doing so through a universal ethic (the greater good).

Take another example. No human should be subject to sexual coercion (ie. rape). Is it necessary to have an august council define this for you or others to know what is meant?

Message edited by author 2010-01-07 12:01:56.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

01/07/2010 12:23:06 PM · #3895

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...Another way to look at it is to ask yourself if we took a hundred people from various places in the world and asked them to define torture, do you think the answers would be more similar than each other or more different? My contention is while they wouldn't be exactly the same, they would be very similar.

I would tend to disagree. Torture involving solely physical means of extracting information might have (for the most part) a universal interpretation, but such is not the case involving psychological abuses. Even in instances of physical torture, there are scenarios which might not be universally condemned, depending on whom you were speaking to and the strata of society they occupy.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Take another example. No human should be subject to sexual coercion (ie. rape). Is it necessary to have an august council define this for you or others to know what is meant?

Sexual coercion is a lot broader than rape, and depending on the society involved it is quite conceivable that the definition might vary substantially from one society to the next. A person in a position of authority or capable of exercising their influence on others could quite readily take advantage of them, and this type of activity might well require review and interpretation.

Ray

Message edited by author 2010-01-07 12:25:26.

01/07/2010 12:47:37 PM · #3896

I know you guys are all good guys. Ray, Courtenay, Louis, heck, even Shannon. But I will say it chills me that we could be having a discussion which calls into question whether torture or rape is really wrong (or what it is). Does this conversation make sense in any context other than the bizarro world of DPC Rant? If the transcript were suddenly to be handed out to a thousand people outside DPC, would we be embarassed at some of the things we are arguing?

RayEthier