Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

01/21/2010 10:11:12 PM · #4201

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Where exactly is the line on the continuum that we can say "to the right is "immoral" and to the left is "natural process""? and why?

Morality is not a continuum, and your chart is wonky. Human suffering does not only occur at the end. That which causes suffering is immoral. That which is incapable of morality does not apply because no good or evil intent (morals) can be ascribed to it.

Well that's exactly my point. We have evolutionary process. That's amoral. It is incapable of morality. We're together so far, right? That process leads to human behavior (Louis mentioned ingroup/outgroup behavior). That behavior leads to human suffering (like forbidding gay marriage). Is that all amoral? or does it become immoral at some point? If so, where and why?

01/21/2010 10:59:14 PM · #4202

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

We have evolutionary process. That's amoral. It is incapable of morality. We're together so far, right?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

That process leads to human behavior... That behavior leads to human suffering (like forbidding gay marriage)...

Not OK. Suffering already exists, and human behavior adapts and changes with time (and not always beneficially). As Louis implied, evolution led to us having nervous systems capable of feeling pain and making decisions that may cause or alleviate pain. From there, your argument puts on clown paint by equating evolution with suffering when you could just as easily associate it with a reduction in suffering. It would be like someone claiming that since God grants free will, and free will leads to evil acts, then God must be evil. You'd throw a fit.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

01/22/2010 01:13:14 AM · #4203

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We have evolutionary process. That's amoral. It is incapable of morality. We're together so far, right?

OK

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That process leads to human behavior... That behavior leads to human suffering (like forbidding gay marriage)...

Not OK. Suffering already exists, and human behavior adapts and changes with time (and not always beneficially). As Louis implied, evolution led to us having nervous systems capable of feeling pain and making decisions that may cause or alleviate pain. From there, your argument puts on clown paint by equating evolution with suffering when you could just as easily associate it with a reduction in suffering. It would be like someone claiming that since God grants free will, and free will leads to evil acts, then God must be evil. You'd throw a fit.

Doesn't that argument happen all the time?

Your rebuttal doesn't make sense to me. Did you just say "evolution led to...nervous systems capable of...making decisions...that...cause or aleviate pain?" Is this somehow different than my little continuum?

evolution --------> human behavior -------> human suffering

Am I not understanding something? I'm not saying it ONLY leads to suffering, but that is irrelevant to my argument. So where does "immoral" come in? I ask again. Where on the line does it make sense to use that word? Or are you saying that somehow human behavior does NOT lead to human suffering? (I don't think you are saying that.) Or are you saying nothing on the continuum is "immoral"? It seems pretty straightforward to me.

Message edited by author 2010-01-22 01:14:32.

Apple iPhone 5

01/22/2010 04:56:35 AM · #4204

DrAchoo gets tough.

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

01/22/2010 12:26:11 PM · #4205

evolution ---> language --> fallacious reasoning in DPC threads --> human suffering

Human behavior includes the capacity for both suffering and abatement, therefore you cannot arbitrarily assign "human suffering" or "immoral" to human behavior and then try to connect that back to evolution. "I'm not saying it ONLY leads to suffering"â�� yes, you certainly are, or else your chart would look like this:

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ---> causing relief (moral)
evolution ---> human behavior |
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ---> causing suffering (immoral)

1) Suffering is abhorrent.
2) That which causes suffering is immoral, that which abates suffering is moral.
3) Evolution leads to behavior, which has the potential to cause suffering OR abate suffering.

Worth noting: if the net balance favors suffering, then the species will decline. If it favors less suffering, then the species will flourish.

Message edited by author 2010-01-22 12:28:12.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/22/2010 12:34:18 PM · #4206

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm not sure how to answer your question Shannon. I could put a ton of effort into explaining what is, honestly, a very thorny issue, but would it be worthwhile? If I went through hours of discussing things, at the end wouldn't you just tell me, "well, I don't believe in God anyway" or "that's 2,000 year old hogwash".

The animals part is easy. In the Christian perspective animals are amoral. Their actions, like your examples of red hair and dwarfism, are not open to moral judgement. At least I don't think they are, and if they are, then that's the baboon's problem and not mine.

The rest is harder. The answer is likely to be found in Romans 6-9. I don't know if you want to take the time to read it and I don't know if you will like the ultimate answer. But I suggest you start there.

I have a problem with the bolded portion of your argument Doc.

If indeed red hair, dwarfism, being left handed (all of which are genetically based) are not open to moral judgement, how is it that segments of our society can condemn someone for being a homosexual... or do you believe that this is a behaviour that one learns and can control.

Ray

01/22/2010 12:36:21 PM · #4207

Originally posted by scalvert:

Oh, well, if that's your hangup then that's fine. Using your flow diagram now tell me exactly where you draw the line between "immoral" and "amoral" and why? We agree that evolution is amoral. I also see you think that "causing suffering" is immoral. (well, I'll grant you could just be arguing for Louis) So where is that transition line? and why is it there?

Message edited by author 2010-01-22 12:36:49.

01/22/2010 12:42:47 PM · #4208

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not sure how to answer your question Shannon. I could put a ton of effort into explaining what is, honestly, a very thorny issue, but would it be worthwhile? If I went through hours of discussing things, at the end wouldn't you just tell me, "well, I don't believe in God anyway" or "that's 2,000 year old hogwash".

The animals part is easy. In the Christian perspective animals are amoral. Their actions, like your examples of red hair and dwarfism, are not open to moral judgement. At least I don't think they are, and if they are, then that's the baboon's problem and not mine.

The rest is harder. The answer is likely to be found in Romans 6-9. I don't know if you want to take the time to read it and I don't know if you will like the ultimate answer. But I suggest you start there.

I have a problem with the bolded portion of your argument Doc.

If indeed red hair, dwarfism, being left handed (all of which are genetically based) are not open to moral judgement, how is it that segments of our society can condemn someone for being a homosexual... or do you believe that this is a behaviour that one learns and can control.

Ray

Here is the difference. And I say it fully understanding you do not agree with it. I don't think anybody is condemning someone for "being" a homosexual. That is, for having the genetic predisposition and environmental trigger. Christianity, for better or worse, says that the act of homosexuality is wrong. (Thus Johnny's attempt at trying to separate the person from the action.) And I know you want to say, "but that's who they are!!!!" and you'll be totally frustrated. The only reply I can give is to point out other genetic predispositions where we tolerate the individual but do not tolerate the action. But then people get their undies in a knot, so I'll refrain.

You can roll your eyes at that, but does it at least explain the thought process? Nobody condemns a left handed person. But we do get mad at a left-handed bank robber. (That's a pretty lame analogy in an attempt to avoid hot-button issues.)

01/22/2010 12:47:04 PM · #4209

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

tell me exactly where you draw the line between "immoral" and "amoral" and why?

The line is drawn where human behavior causes suffering. Louis already explained why.

If you still don't understand why your "continuum" argument is fallacious, draw your graph this way:

evolutionary process ---> human behavior ---> abatement of human suffering

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

01/22/2010 12:50:33 PM · #4210

Here's a chart for ya, doc:

Christianity, for better or worse, says that the act of homosexuality is wrong --> human suffering

Let me know if you have trouble figuring out where the line is crossed.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/22/2010 12:59:05 PM · #4211

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If indeed red hair, dwarfism, being left handed (all of which are genetically based) are not open to moral judgement, how is it that segments of our society can condemn someone for being a homosexual... or do you believe that this is a behaviour that one learns and can control.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

... Nobody condemns a left handed person. But we do get mad at a left-handed bank robber. (That's a pretty lame analogy in an attempt to avoid hot-button issues.)

Perhaps they don't now (at least publicly) but they most certainly did at one time, witness the comments below which can be found Here:

"In the Koran and the Christian Bible the elect and God's favourite sit on its right hand side, and the damned on its left. In the Gospel of Matthew the author has Jesus place God's followers (the sheep) on its right and the goats (non-followers) on its left hand side (Matthew 25:33). The Catholic Church held for over a thousand years that being left handed made you a servant of the Devil and that anything left-handed was evil. [Gooch, 1984] Muslims forbid the touching of any holy scripture with the left hand. Jesus sits on the right hand of God. In pictures of the Last Judgement the Christian God shows his disciples their new heavenly abode with his right hand, and points with his left to hell. The Left Hand Path, therefore, being the demonic, the diabolical and the Earthly path to Hell."

Perhaps in time we can hope that the fear and oppression of homosexuals will also disappear.

Ray

Message edited by author 2010-01-22 14:38:29.

01/22/2010 01:10:35 PM · #4212

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
tell me exactly where you draw the line between "immoral" and "amoral" and why?

The line is drawn where human behavior causes suffering. Louis already explained why.

If you still don't understand why your "continuum" argument is fallacious, draw your graph this way:

evolutionary process ---> human behavior ---> abatement of human suffering

Ya, that's fine. Then the question would become, where do we draw the line "moral"?

The point here is that we consider evolution and evolutionary process to be amoral. These lead directly to human behavior. All human behavior. Wouldn't it? Isn't everything we are, our abilities and actions, behaviors and hangups, all a result of evolution? So here is my problem:

One one side Louis (and others), when trying to explain human suffering in the world, are saying, hey, what should we expect? It's the way things are. Evolution has produced suffering and creatures that suffer. "There is exactly the right amount of suffering in the world." That is, "it is as it is".

But on the other side Louis (and others), when trying to explain human suffering in the world, are saying, it is caused by immoral actions and we should do everything within our power to reduce the number of those actions in the world. We need to stop those actions.

Do you see the contradiction? On one hand evolution produces an instinctual distrust for people who are not like us. We group with people who are similar to ourselves. When asked why it has to be this way we hear, "it's evolution and it is as it is." On the other hand we talk about racism and discrimination against homosexuality and we declare it immoral because it causes suffering. We say it should be stopped. At that point I get a "does not compute" error. We cannot simultaneously declare something 'as it is' and worthy of 'being stopped'. We either take the fatalistic view ('as it is') or we take the aggressive view ('should be stopped'). The two cannot truly exist together.

01/22/2010 01:43:27 PM · #4213

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

One one side Louis (and others), when trying to explain human suffering in the world, are saying, hey, what should we expect? It's the way things are. Evolution has produced suffering and creatures that suffer. "There is exactly the right amount of suffering in the world." That is, "it is as it is".

But on the other side Louis (and others), when trying to explain human suffering in the world, are saying, it is caused by immoral actions and we should do everything within our power to reduce the number of those actions in the world. We need to stop those actions.

Do you see the contradiction?

No, I see you repeating the exact same mistake you made with your chart: assuming everything falls into one discrete area with no overlap or interaction from opposing forces. There is human suffering in the world. Earthquakes, poverty, hunger, oppression... you can't avoid all of it. Evolution produces suffering (poison, claws, disease), but is ALSO abates suffering (resistance, armor, immune systems). There is exactly the right amount of suffering in the world because adversity drove the changes that resulted in our intelligence, opposable thumbs and taste buds without wiping out the human race entirely. However, these results did not come from simply accepting adversity. Where actions cause suffering we try to reduce or eliminate them. That *IS* evolutionâ�� fighting and adapting to foil things that cause us to suffer. There is some suffering that we cannot stop (earthquakes and hurricanes will still occur), but we can and do take steps to mitigate them with building codes and seawalls because suffering is worthy of being stopped. Your idea that it can only be one way or the other is ridiculous, and there's no excuse for continuing the suffering induced by hatred and discrimination of gays when stopping it doesn't harm anyone.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

01/22/2010 02:40:51 PM · #4214

Originally posted by scalvert:

Where actions cause suffering we try to reduce or eliminate them. That *IS* evolutionâ�� fighting and adapting to foil things that cause us to suffer.

Here is where I think you are being a bit simplistic (since you think I am as well). Most actions are never as straightforward as to reduce suffering in everybody. They usually reduce suffering for one individual or group and increase it for another. I agree with you that that *IS* evolution, but why should we seek to stop it? The strong survive and the weak perish. You and I both have this notion that the weak need protection, but this goes against evolutionary pressure. The message of evolution is that the strong survive while the weak die. That is THE message. I find it interesting that that very process has produced a mindset that is exactly the opposite. "The strong should expend extra energy to protect the weak." I know the answer is going to involve social species and altruism, etc. but this isn't sufficient in my mind. We see lots of non-altruistic behavior in social species and so we should expect it in ourselves? This is why I ultimately reject the idea that our morality can purely arise from our evolution. The two are too dissimilar to assume it to be that way.

Message edited by author 2010-01-22 14:42:36.

Louis

Nikon D800

01/22/2010 02:50:11 PM · #4215

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The strong survive and the weak perish.

Actually, to be 100% accurate, evolutionary theory holds that the most well-adapted to the environment in which they live survive more often to reproduce, while the less well-adapted survive less often to reproduce, "survival of the fittest" referring to "the most-well adapted to the environment in which they live".

01/22/2010 03:02:45 PM · #4216

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The strong survive and the weak perish.

Actually, to be 100% accurate, evolutionary theory holds that the most well-adapted to the environment in which they live survive more often to reproduce, while the less well-adapted survive less often to reproduce, "survival of the fittest" referring to "the most-well adapted to the environment in which they live".

Quite right. I was just saying it in less words. :)

01/22/2010 03:04:26 PM · #4217

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I agree with you that that *IS* evolution, but why should we seek to stop it? The strong survive and the weak perish. You and I both have this notion that the weak need protection, but this goes against evolutionary pressure. The message of evolution is that the strong survive while the weak die. That is THE message.

No, that's "survival of the fittest," and it's NOT the message of evolution. "An interpretation of the phrase "survival of the fittest" to mean "only the fittest organisms will prevail" (a view sometimes derided as "Social Darwinism") is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution." The message of evolution is that organisms faced with suffering (hunger, predation, disease, etc.) either find a way combat that suffering or ultimately perish.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Most actions are never as straightforward as to reduce suffering in everybody. They usually reduce suffering for one individual or group and increase it for another.

This ain't one of them. You have yet to offer an example of actual suffering that would occur as a result of gay marriage.

Funny side note on Dave Ross' commentary today. He notes that the Supreme Court has essentially ruled that corporations must be treated the same as individuals... unless it's a gay corporation, in which case mergers are not allowed in most states. ;-)

01/22/2010 03:37:48 PM · #4218

Originally posted by Louis:

Religionists who foreswear this life for the "next" resent it. It's a resounding "no" to life. I find it unpalatable and undignified. But you needn't worry, this is only a talking point, not part of a debate. I never proposed this as the basis of some argument. But I will say that I can easily give you ten examples of the faithful declaring how worthless and unsanctified this life is compared to the "next". Such disdain for humanity is ugly and dangerous.

So just because Christian's think that heaven is better than this life, that somehow means that Christian's despise this life and believe it's worthless? That's absurd! If I told you that beef was the ultimate meat, and I'd rather eat beef than any other meat, would you conclude that I despise poultry, pork, and venison?

Originally posted by Louis:

Yes, I can prove my spouse exists, and I can prove love and beauty exist, and, with a statistical probability that would satisfy even the densest person, I can prove they'll be there tomorrow. Let us not put everyone through the torture of actually conducting such a ridiculous and pointless exercise. Let us just agree that whereas such things are self-evident, God is nowhere evident except through the lens of your faith.

Is your wife's love for you self-evident? Millions of people believe that God's love for them is self-evident, but you think its all fantasy. How do you know that your spouses love is real? What if she's lying and deceiving you, and creating that fantasy for you? Obviously you've developed a trust for her based on your experiences. In the same way, Christians develop trust for God because of their experiences. You experience your wife's love, and believe that it's real. Christians experience God's love, and believe that it's real. You can't prove either scientifically.

01/22/2010 03:38:06 PM · #4219

Originally posted by scalvert:

1) Suffering is abhorrent.
2) That which causes suffering is immoral, that which abates suffering is moral.
3) Evolution leads to behavior, which has the potential to cause suffering OR abate suffering.

Worth noting: if the net balance favors suffering, then the species will decline. If it favors less suffering, then the species will flourish.

I'm interested in this discussion now. Is everything that causes suffering immoral, and is everything that abates suffer moral?

01/22/2010 03:40:52 PM · #4220

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by scalvert:

1) Suffering is abhorrent.
2) That which causes suffering is immoral, that which abates suffering is moral.
3) Evolution leads to behavior, which has the potential to cause suffering OR abate suffering.

Worth noting: if the net balance favors suffering, then the species will decline. If it favors less suffering, then the species will flourish.

I'm interested in this discussion now. Is everything that causes suffering immoral, and is everything that abates suffer moral?

I'll answer for them. They would consider only human action. Hurricanes, for example are not immoral.

01/22/2010 03:42:53 PM · #4221

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by scalvert:

1) Suffering is abhorrent.
2) That which causes suffering is immoral, that which abates suffering is moral.
3) Evolution leads to behavior, which has the potential to cause suffering OR abate suffering.

Worth noting: if the net balance favors suffering, then the species will decline. If it favors less suffering, then the species will flourish.

I'm interested in this discussion now. Is everything that causes suffering immoral, and is everything that abates suffer moral?

I'll answer for them. They would consider only human action. Hurricanes, for example are not immoral.

I'm not talking about that.

Is every human action that causes suffering immoral, and is every human action that abates suffering moral?

01/22/2010 03:43:42 PM · #4222

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Louis:
Yes, I can prove my spouse exists, and I can prove love and beauty exist, and, with a statistical probability that would satisfy even the densest person, I can prove they'll be there tomorrow.

Is your wife's love for you self-evident? What if she's lying...

LOL! OK, who wants to clue in the new guy? ;-)

01/22/2010 03:45:48 PM · #4223

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I agree with you that that *IS* evolution, but why should we seek to stop it? The strong survive and the weak perish. You and I both have this notion that the weak need protection, but this goes against evolutionary pressure. The message of evolution is that the strong survive while the weak die. That is THE message.

No, that's "survival of the fittest," and it's NOT the message of evolution. "An interpretation of the phrase "survival of the fittest" to mean "only the fittest organisms will prevail" (a view sometimes derided as "Social Darwinism") is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution." The message of evolution is that organisms faced with suffering (hunger, predation, disease, etc.) either find a way combat that suffering or ultimately perish.

That mistake only comes when you interpret "fit" to mean "strong" and not "most able". I was not and am not making that mistake. Being the most "fit" does not mean you are the strongest. I'm using "strong" and "weak" very loosely and maybe that's my bad. it's easier to write that than "most adapted" and "least adapted". So your restatement is really what I am saying. The most fit to deal with suffering survive. However, part of that process is the suffering inflicted by others within your own species. It doesn't do to suddenly say actions like discrimination and prejudice do not fall into the "hunger, predation, disease" category just because we don't like them.

01/22/2010 03:46:20 PM · #4224

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Louis:
Yes, I can prove my spouse exists, and I can prove love and beauty exist, and, with a statistical probability that would satisfy even the densest person, I can prove they'll be there tomorrow.

Is your wife's love for you self-evident? What if she's lying...

LOL! OK, who wants to clue in the new guy? ;-)

I left that up to Louis. He didn't bite, so I'd leave it.

Message edited by author 2010-01-22 15:46:33.