|
On October 24 2013 10:24 Shiori wrote:
You're arguing against something that I don't hold. I have no idea why you move from "a lot of sex is done for pleasure" to "homosexual sex is particularly bad."
See, your argument is against promiscuity, not homosexuality.I don't know what world you live in, but, for my part, I can say that I've definitely had sex to express love/enrich a bond. Nowhere have I argued that this is always the case.
You seem to be implying that all gay people are promiscuous, or something. Do you seriously believe that all gay sex is done solely for pleasure?
Here's what Kant actually says: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end."
Sex in no way violates this, unless you consider the other MERELY as a means to an end. MERELY. For God's sake, sex is not a substitute variable for "person's dignity."
I am arguing that any argument in favor of homosexual sex will also have to make promiscuous sex morally kosher. But Kant gives us good reason to think that promiscuous sex is not morally kosher. Therefore any argument in favor of homosexual sex will also have to argue for something false. But this just means that such an argument would itself be unsound. The options here are 1) to distinguish homosexual sex from promiscuous sex, which won't work because any reasonable defender of homosexual sex also thinks promiscuous sex is fine, 2) to argue against Kant that promiscuous sex is just fine, which is a perfectly fine angle of attack, or 3) to accept that promiscuous, and therefore most homosexual, sex is morally wrong.
You have tried and are currently trying to do something like 1, but I really do not think this is a solid line of argumentation. Nobody's moral sympathies really imply that homosexual sex is perfectly acceptable, but just when it's particularly loving and considerate. Any rational defender of homosexual sex, given that he will be for the most part defending sex outside of marriages, has also to hold that this kind of promiscuous sex is just fine. But this means taking option 2, which I think is quite difficult.
|
Any rational defender of homosexual sex, given that he will be for the most part defending sex outside of marriages, has also to hold that this kind of promiscuous sex is just fine.
Cute trick.
I mean that's not even what the word "promiscuous" means, so...
Nobody's moral sympathies really imply that homosexual sex is perfectly acceptable, but just when it's particularly loving and considerate
The equivalent can be very easily said of heterosexual sex. Just because there's a procreative element doesn't mean that it's "perfectly acceptable" to do anything.
to accept that promiscuous, and therefore most homosexual, sex is morally wrong.
You mean most period. As in, not just homosexual; most sex period is the product of promiscuity, which I have no problem considering (in some sense, anyway) immoral. But the notion that heterosexuality somehow escapes this, or that homosexual sex is uniquely promiscuous, is absurd.
You're, again, arguing against promiscuous sex, which I have nowhere argued is a good thing. I am arguing that the act of homosexual intercourse no more constitutes immorality on its own that does heterosexual intercourse. There is no requirement that either part be promiscuous, because I'm not trying to argue that all sex (homosexual or otherwise) is the product of sound moral reasoning. I'm saying that there's no reason to single out homosexual sex on the grounds of promiscuity (appealing to the word marriage is completely ridiculous, particularly given that marriage as it exists today is a recent invention, and that what we had before wasn't very desirable).
|
On October 24 2013 10:36 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +Any rational defender of homosexual sex, given that he will be for the most part defending sex outside of marriages, has also to hold that this kind of promiscuous sex is just fine. Cute trick. I mean that's not even what the word "promiscuous" means, so... Show nested quote +Nobody's moral sympathies really imply that homosexual sex is perfectly acceptable, but just when it's particularly loving and considerate The equivalent can be very easily said of heterosexual sex. Just because there's a procreative element doesn't mean that it's "perfectly acceptable" to do anything. Show nested quote +to accept that promiscuous, and therefore most homosexual, sex is morally wrong. You mean most period. As in, not just homosexual; most sex period is the product of promiscuity, which I have no problem considering (in some sense, anyway) immoral. But the notion that heterosexuality somehow escapes this, or that homosexual sex is uniquely promiscuous, is absurd.
Again: your remarks here cash out in accepting that promiscuous sex is wrong. This is not a belief that any modern defender of homosexual sex holds. What would be the point in defending homosexual sex if we had to give up a wide range of our other beliefs about the morality of sex in general? My point here is that defending homosexual sex is not as easy as showing that it is a lot like heterosexual sex. We have to do the very difficult positive work of showing that either promiscuous sex is okay or that whatever particular lines we happen to draw between morally permissible and morally impermissible sex are the right ones. It might appear in the argument as if a defender of homosexual sex can simply show that homosexual sex is often the same as heterosexual sex and go home, but any rational and coherent defender of same has to have an account handy of how to show that most sex in general, which I'll maintain is quite promiscuous, is morally permissible. You have not done this, and therefore you are committed, until further developments, to the belief, just like your opponents, that most homosexual sex is wrong.
|
This is not a belief that any modern defender of homosexual sex holds.
I hold this. I don't think it's worthy of the death penalty, or anything, but I don't think it's indicative of integrity ,either.
You can't just decide what people are arguing. It really, really doesn't work that way. All that needs to be shown is that homosexual sex isn't different from heterosexual sex in any way that affects its ability to be loving/consensual/etc. And that much is obvious.
|
On October 24 2013 10:52 Shiori wrote:I hold this. I don't think it's worthy of the death penalty, or anything, but I don't think it's indicative of integrity ,either. You can't just decide what people are arguing. It really, really doesn't work that way. All that needs to be shown is that homosexual sex isn't different from heterosexual sex in any way that affects its ability to be loving/consensual/etc. And that much is obvious.
It's a very strange move for you to defend homosexual sex from conservative detractors by showing that it is relevantly similar to heterosexual sex, when most of both kinds of sex turn out to be morally wrong. If you really held the set of beliefs you're claiming, you would point out to these conservatives that heterosexual sex, too, was for the most part wrong. But this is precisely what you did not do. I now cite a battery of quotes as evidence.
But if you look at actual ethical philosophy, and science, and really the human understanding of goodness in general, homosexuality is just so obviously not an evil thing.
In what way are homosexuals disrespecting their bodies or treating their bodies poorly?
In what way is homosexuality a "deficiency of good," then?
If homosexual sex is so sinful, then why the fuck would God make homosexual people to begin with?
There is literally no way to reconcile a good Creator (who created homosexuals) with the explicit forbidding of any and all homosexual actions, given that homosexuality is equivalent in every sense to the sexuality of heterosexual people, just with inverted targets.
I don't think you're twisting around your views on purpose, but I do think you emphasize and deemphasize certain parts of your largely unstable network of beliefs in order to better your argumentative position at any given time. It sure looks here like you're saying that homosexuality isn't for the most part sinful, but this is precisely what you just admitted (unless you also hold that most homosexual sex is not promiscuous, a very dubious claim). In fact, assuming you aren't being facetious in epousing theism, it seems as though you're specifically giving arguments against the possibility of homosexuality mostly wrong. But, again, you just conceded that it was mostly wrong. How did you do that? Why make arguments saying that God couldn't rightfully condemn homosexuals initially, and then later agree with me that most homosexual activity is morally wrong? That's sure a funny thing to do.
|
I'm arguing that homosexuality in itself is not sinful. I am arguing that homosexual sex is not innately immoral. There is no inconsistency, here. Homosexuality is not in any part sinful. Homosexual sex can be done in an immoral manner and in a moral manner. That's all I'm arguing and have ever been arguing. Homosexuality itself isn't sinful.
I'm not really sure where the idea that we need to look at average promiscuity came from, but, if anything, that seems decidedly un-Kantian.
|
On October 24 2013 08:29 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 07:59 farvacola wrote:"Rational agents" don't exist anyway, so I'm not sure why I even commented  Explain though...! I've seen you in threads which have substance so I was wondering why your posts are so short and so "naked" so to speak. So checked it out and you've posted 24 times in this thread, and you've averaged 2.5 lines per post (probably less because I rounded partial lines as one). Your only post with more than 5 lines had 12 and it's because I insisted that you write something. 10 of your 24 posts are one-liners and 8 are two-liners. It's clear to me that in some areas you're at least a pretty smart guy and I could learn a thing or two from you, if you stopped acting like everything you say is obvious because you know (or believe) it. PS: I know what you mean when you say rational agents don't exist, but the conversation can't possibly end with that.
Yes well this is the end result of my using internet communication as a sort of outlet when, in my everyday life, I have an immensely difficult time being succinct. I've also made really long posts in the pasts and was convinced that no one really read them, so perhaps I was wrong in that regard.
On a basic level, most of what I believe in and know is informed by the understanding that words and language itself are fundamentally limited; however, the boundaries of this limitation are not set in stone across all dynamics of reference. In other words, some times our words work better than others, and figuring out where and when to rely on them as essentially truth-bearing is one of the best goals to have in pursuit of knowledge in a general sense. In terms of academic reference, I really enjoy a book by the name of Philosophical Investigations by Wittgenstein, which is essentially an odd list of numbered quips in which Wittgenstein plays word games that display how utterly contextual meaning in language ends up being, with an emphasis on use and function as the most prominent bearers of "truth". Where I differ with this view mostly has to do with where we go after realizing that many (if not most or all) extended questions in metaphysical philosophy are essentially language games that talk their way out of meaningful reference. Many would suggest that we simply pay attention to other things and give up these metaphysical pursuits in futility, whereas I think creative expression and breaking the rules of these language games in deliberate ways open up our ability to touch on difficult to speak of concepts.
It is along these lines that I would consider most attempts at logically or analytically explaining the tenets of a "good" Christian faith or the meaning/concept of "God" useful only to a very limited point. Both sides of the debate, those being the believers/apologists and the atheists/"logicians", are coming into the ring with vastly different systems of reference, so much so that the debate fizzles out before it begins. For example, the concept of belief itself is an incredibly personal idea, one that turns upon how one (sub)consciously conceptualizes their being. Typically, this dynamic can be described using the soul/mind dichotomy, and for many on this forum, the "rational" mind is given de facto conscious primacy in terms of how they characterize their perception. Accordingly, these folk conceptualize belief in a fairly narrow fashion a la that which is irrational and to be avoided if possible; knowledge is, of course, to be relied on above all else. (keep in mind that I am painting in broad strokes here, there are obvious exceptions).
While I cannot speak for others who would defend religion (ironman speaks for himself ), my personal experience with "belief" is that it actually includes a ton of doubt, and this is not exactly a new idea. The story of Thomas the Apostle first comes to mind, but the likes of Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard have also spoken on how authentic belief requires that one acknowledge a rational doubt that effectively follows you for the rest of your life. So when others imply that religious folk categorically adhere to outlandish systems of faith that proudly mock Rationality in their resolve, they are acting on a misunderstanding of terms. It certainly doesn't help that many major religious institutions put forth very difficult to reason with doctrines in addition to having acted in an absolutely deplorable fashion, but to act on that knowledge in describing commonalities among Christians would be like using US foreign policy to describe your average US citizen; it might be tempting, but when the scale and nature of religious identification are taken into account, it becomes an untenable position. Many not only doubt their faith but also the entirety of the religious superstructure through which they participate every Sunday/Saturday, but this doubt comes alongside experience that has played a demonstrably positive role in their lives, be it through their interaction with charity, education, or personal knowledge. This is not to say that we cannot or should not call a spade a spade; when belief is implemented as a justification for "bad" ideas, be they the likes of homophobia, judgmentalism, violence, or scientific quackery, it is obvious that such things are to be dismissed and fought against.
There are many churches out there that are rather unlike the Church, contrary to what many on these boards would suggest. I grew up going to an Episcopalian church in Toledo, Ohio that was full to the brim with people from all walks of life. There were extremely flamboyant gay couples, very homeless bad smelling dudes, and well to do suburban families all coming together to basically sing songs, say a few prayers, and maybe run a soup kitchen that afternoon. Our pastor moved to North Carolina only to be replaced by a lesbian, and I then got to hand out programs at an unofficial gay wedding. No, most churches are not like this, I'm well aware, but I've met many self proclaimed religious people who entertain incredibly "rational" and hardnosed perspectives alongside their difficult to describe relationship with faith. Keeping in mind how I described the differences in how people act on belief and conceptualize it, it doesn't really make sense to assume that, by definition, Christians adhere to some crazily stilted view on how the Bible is the infallible word of God or that even the majority let the proclamations of the Church dictate how they view others or live their lives. Sorry, but you asked for it
(Oh yeah, "rational actor" is just a useful illusion that words let us conjure up. When it comes to something like faith or economics, I'd say its less useful and more illusion. In the words of Pierre Bourdieu, it makes more sense to say something like "feel for the game" which implicitly includes the notion that humans persistently act on a mix of rational and irrational complusions.)
|
On October 24 2013 11:25 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 08:29 Djzapz wrote:On October 24 2013 07:59 farvacola wrote:"Rational agents" don't exist anyway, so I'm not sure why I even commented Explain though...! I've seen you in threads which have substance so I was wondering why your posts are so short and so "naked" so to speak. So checked it out and you've posted 24 times in this thread, and you've averaged 2.5 lines per post (probably less because I rounded partial lines as one). Your only post with more than 5 lines had 12 and it's because I insisted that you write something. 10 of your 24 posts are one-liners and 8 are two-liners. It's clear to me that in some areas you're at least a pretty smart guy and I could learn a thing or two from you, if you stopped acting like everything you say is obvious because you know (or believe) it. PS: I know what you mean when you say rational agents don't exist, but the conversation can't possibly end with that. Yes well this is the end result of my using internet communication as a sort of outlet when, in my everyday life, I have an immensely difficult time being succinct. I've also made really long posts in the pasts and was convinced that no one really read them, so perhaps I was wrong in that regard. On a basic level, most of what I believe in and know is informed by the understanding that words and language itself is fundamentally limited; however, the boundaries of this limitation are not set in stone across all dynamics of reference. In other words, some times our words work better than others, and figuring out where and when to rely on them as essentially truth-bearing is one of the best goals to have in pursuit of knowledge in a general sense. In terms of academic reference, I really enjoy a book by the name of Philosophical Investigations by Wittgenstein, which is essentially an odd list of numbered quips in which Wittgenstein plays word games that display how utterly contextual meaning in language ends up being, with an emphasis on use and function as the most prominent bearers of "truth". Where I differ with this view mostly has to do where we go after realizing that many (if not most or all) extended questions in metaphysical philosophy are essentially language games that talk their way out of meaningful reference. Many would suggest that we simply pay attention to other things and give up these metaphysical pursuits in futility, whereas I think creative expression and breaking the rules of these language games in deliberate ways open up our ability to touch on difficult to speak of concepts. It is along these lines that I would consider most attempts at logically or analytically explaining the tenets of a "good" Christian faith or the meaning/concept of "God" useful only a very limited point. Both sides of the debate, those being the believers/apologists and the atheists/"logicians", are coming into the ring with vastly different systems of reference, so much so that the debate fizzles out before it begins. For example, the concept of belief itself is an incredibly personal idea, one that turns upon how one (sub)consciously conceptualizes their being. Typically, this dynamic can be described using the soul/mind dichotomy, and for many on this forum, the "rational" mind is given de facto conscious primacy in terms of how they characterize their perception. Accordingly, these folk conceptualize belief in a fairly narrow fashion a la that which is irrational and to be avoided if possible; knowledge is, of course, to be relied on above all else. (keep in mind that I am painting in broad strokes here, there are obvious exceptions). While I cannot speak for others who would defend religion (ironman speaks for himself ), my personal experience with "belief" is that it actually includes a ton of doubt, and this is not exactly a new idea. The story of Thomas the Apostle first comes to mind, but the likes of Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard have also spoken on how authentic belief requires that one acknowledge a rational doubt that effectively follows you for the rest of your life. So when others imply that religious folk categorically adhere to outlandish systems of faith that proudly mock Rationality in their resolve, they are acting on a misunderstanding of terms. It certainly doesn't help that many major religious institutions put forth very difficult to reason with doctrines in addition to having acted in an absolutely deplorable fashion, but to act on that knowledge in describing commonalities among Christians would be like using US foreign policy to describe your average US citizen; it might be tempting, but when the scale and nature of religious of identification are taken into account, it becomes an untenable position. Many not only doubt their faith but also the entirety of the religious superstructure through which they participate every Sunday/Saturday, but this doubt comes alongside experience that has played a demonstrably positive role in their lives, be it through their interaction with charity, education, or personal knowledge. This is not to say that we cannot or should not call a spade a spade; when belief is implemented as a justification for "bad" ideas, be they the likes of homophobia, judgmentalism, violence, or scientific quackery, it is obvious that such things are to be dismissed and fought against. There are many churches out there that are rather unlike the Church, contrary to what many on these boards would suggest. I grew up going to an Episcopalian church in Toledo, Ohio that was full to the brim with people from all walk of life. There were extremely flamboyant gay couples, very homeless bad smelling dudes, and well to do suburban families all coming together to basically sing songs, say a few prayers, and maybe run a soup kitchen that afternoon. Our pastor moved to North Carolina only to be replaced by a lesbian, and I then got to hand out programs at an unofficial gay wedding. No, most churches are not like this, I'm well aware, but I've met many self proclaimed religious people who entertain incredibly "rational" and hardnosed perspectives alongside their difficult to describe relationship with faith. Keeping in mind how I described the differences in how people act on belief and conceptualize it, it doesn't really make sense to assume that, by definition, Christians adhere to some crazily stilted view on how the Bible is the infallible word of God or that even the majority let the proclamations of the Church dictate how they view others or live their lives. Sorry, but you asked for it (Oh yeah, "rational actor" is just a useful illusion that words let us conjure up. When it comes to something like faith or economics, I'd say its less useful and more illusion. In the words of Pierre Bourdieu, it makes more sense to say something like "feel for the game" which implicitly includes the notion that humans persistently act on a mix of rational and irrational complusions.)
THANK you for that Wittgenstein title. I've been trying to figure out what book that is for ages. I saw a snippet from it a long time ago, and I hadn't really ever gotten around to tracking it down. Definitely something I wanna read.
Also, the rest of what you said, I agree with. Kierkegaard, especially, resonates with me.
|
Haha no problem, I push that book on most people whom I've met, just ask Sam
|
I really wish I could meet you/Sam. I lack friends of your type, as creepy as that sounds LOL.
|
On October 24 2013 11:25 farvacola wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 24 2013 08:29 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 07:59 farvacola wrote:"Rational agents" don't exist anyway, so I'm not sure why I even commented Explain though...! I've seen you in threads which have substance so I was wondering why your posts are so short and so "naked" so to speak. So checked it out and you've posted 24 times in this thread, and you've averaged 2.5 lines per post (probably less because I rounded partial lines as one). Your only post with more than 5 lines had 12 and it's because I insisted that you write something. 10 of your 24 posts are one-liners and 8 are two-liners. It's clear to me that in some areas you're at least a pretty smart guy and I could learn a thing or two from you, if you stopped acting like everything you say is obvious because you know (or believe) it. PS: I know what you mean when you say rational agents don't exist, but the conversation can't possibly end with that. Yes well this is the end result of my using internet communication as a sort of outlet when, in my everyday life, I have an immensely difficult time being succinct. I've also made really long posts in the pasts and was convinced that no one really read them, so perhaps I was wrong in that regard. On a basic level, most of what I believe in and know is informed by the understanding that words and language itself is fundamentally limited; however, the boundaries of this limitation are not set in stone across all dynamics of reference. In other words, some times our words work better than others, and figuring out where and when to rely on them as essentially truth-bearing is one of the best goals to have in pursuit of knowledge in a general sense. In terms of academic reference, I really enjoy a book by the name of Philosophical Investigations by Wittgenstein, which is essentially an odd list of numbered quips in which Wittgenstein plays word games that display how utterly contextual meaning in language ends up being, with an emphasis on use and function as the most prominent bearers of "truth". Where I differ with this view mostly has to do with where we go after realizing that many (if not most or all) extended questions in metaphysical philosophy are essentially language games that talk their way out of meaningful reference. Many would suggest that we simply pay attention to other things and give up these metaphysical pursuits in futility, whereas I think creative expression and breaking the rules of these language games in deliberate ways open up our ability to touch on difficult to speak of concepts. It is along these lines that I would consider most attempts at logically or analytically explaining the tenets of a "good" Christian faith or the meaning/concept of "God" useful only to a very limited point. Both sides of the debate, those being the believers/apologists and the atheists/"logicians", are coming into the ring with vastly different systems of reference, so much so that the debate fizzles out before it begins. For example, the concept of belief itself is an incredibly personal idea, one that turns upon how one (sub)consciously conceptualizes their being. Typically, this dynamic can be described using the soul/mind dichotomy, and for many on this forum, the "rational" mind is given de facto conscious primacy in terms of how they characterize their perception. Accordingly, these folk conceptualize belief in a fairly narrow fashion a la that which is irrational and to be avoided if possible; knowledge is, of course, to be relied on above all else. (keep in mind that I am painting in broad strokes here, there are obvious exceptions). While I cannot speak for others who would defend religion (ironman speaks for himself ), my personal experience with "belief" is that it actually includes a ton of doubt, and this is not exactly a new idea. The story of Thomas the Apostle first comes to mind, but the likes of Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard have also spoken on how authentic belief requires that one acknowledge a rational doubt that effectively follows you for the rest of your life. So when others imply that religious folk categorically adhere to outlandish systems of faith that proudly mock Rationality in their resolve, they are acting on a misunderstanding of terms. It certainly doesn't help that many major religious institutions put forth very difficult to reason with doctrines in addition to having acted in an absolutely deplorable fashion, but to act on that knowledge in describing commonalities among Christians would be like using US foreign policy to describe your average US citizen; it might be tempting, but when the scale and nature of religious identification are taken into account, it becomes an untenable position. Many not only doubt their faith but also the entirety of the religious superstructure through which they participate every Sunday/Saturday, but this doubt comes alongside experience that has played a demonstrably positive role in their lives, be it through their interaction with charity, education, or personal knowledge. This is not to say that we cannot or should not call a spade a spade; when belief is implemented as a justification for "bad" ideas, be they the likes of homophobia, judgmentalism, violence, or scientific quackery, it is obvious that such things are to be dismissed and fought against. There are many churches out there that are rather unlike the Church, contrary to what many on these boards would suggest. I grew up going to an Episcopalian church in Toledo, Ohio that was full to the brim with people from all walks of life. There were extremely flamboyant gay couples, very homeless bad smelling dudes, and well to do suburban families all coming together to basically sing songs, say a few prayers, and maybe run a soup kitchen that afternoon. Our pastor moved to North Carolina only to be replaced by a lesbian, and I then got to hand out programs at an unofficial gay wedding. No, most churches are not like this, I'm well aware, but I've met many self proclaimed religious people who entertain incredibly "rational" and hardnosed perspectives alongside their difficult to describe relationship with faith. Keeping in mind how I described the differences in how people act on belief and conceptualize it, it doesn't really make sense to assume that, by definition, Christians adhere to some crazily stilted view on how the Bible is the infallible word of God or that even the majority let the proclamations of the Church dictate how they view others or live their lives. Sorry, but you asked for it (Oh yeah, "rational actor" is just a useful illusion that words let us conjure up. When it comes to something like faith or economics, I'd say its less useful and more illusion. In the words of Pierre Bourdieu, it makes more sense to say something like "feel for the game" which implicitly includes the notion that humans persistently act on a mix of rational and irrational complusions.)
Excellent read farva, thank you. Our previous disagreements, IMO, were largely misunderstandings on my part because you didn't give me much to go off of. If you had just expressed your thoughts (which are actually food for thought), then perhaps we wouldn't have gotten off on the wrong foot.
I think you should keep that up. And I don't mean to sound patronizing here, you legitimately cleared some stuff up for me. (I still try to park myself on team rationality though).
Cheers
|
On October 24 2013 11:35 farvacola wrote:Haha no problem, I push that book on most people whom I've met, just ask Sam
Which translation did you read? I see there's a new one that's not by Anscombe. Should I try and get it or should I just read the free Anscombe translation off the internet?
|
On October 24 2013 10:48 Lixler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 10:36 Shiori wrote:Any rational defender of homosexual sex, given that he will be for the most part defending sex outside of marriages, has also to hold that this kind of promiscuous sex is just fine. Cute trick. I mean that's not even what the word "promiscuous" means, so... Nobody's moral sympathies really imply that homosexual sex is perfectly acceptable, but just when it's particularly loving and considerate The equivalent can be very easily said of heterosexual sex. Just because there's a procreative element doesn't mean that it's "perfectly acceptable" to do anything. to accept that promiscuous, and therefore most homosexual, sex is morally wrong. You mean most period. As in, not just homosexual; most sex period is the product of promiscuity, which I have no problem considering (in some sense, anyway) immoral. But the notion that heterosexuality somehow escapes this, or that homosexual sex is uniquely promiscuous, is absurd. Again: your remarks here cash out in accepting that promiscuous sex is wrong. This is not a belief that any modern defender of homosexual sex holds. What would be the point in defending homosexual sex if we had to give up a wide range of our other beliefs about the morality of sex in general? My point here is that defending homosexual sex is not as easy as showing that it is a lot like heterosexual sex. We have to do the very difficult positive work of showing that either promiscuous sex is okay or that whatever particular lines we happen to draw between morally permissible and morally impermissible sex are the right ones. It might appear in the argument as if a defender of homosexual sex can simply show that homosexual sex is often the same as heterosexual sex and go home, but any rational and coherent defender of same has to have an account handy of how to show that most sex in general, which I'll maintain is quite promiscuous, is morally permissible. You have not done this, and therefore you are committed, until further developments, to the belief, just like your opponents, that most homosexual sex is wrong.
I find it quite bewildering that you would argue that most sexual acts are performed solely for pleasure. You never defined what you meant by "promiscuous," by which you seem to mean done solely for the selfish pleasure of the actor. You also haven't explained why you think it's dubious that the majority of, or merely many, homosexual acts are not "promiscuous." Most expressive acts between individuals are done for a myriad of reasons, rather than simply and wholly for pleasure, perhaps foremost among them being a desire to communicate with a willing partner. Such communication is inherently a two-way street.
|
On October 24 2013 11:01 Lixler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 10:52 Shiori wrote:This is not a belief that any modern defender of homosexual sex holds. I hold this. I don't think it's worthy of the death penalty, or anything, but I don't think it's indicative of integrity ,either. You can't just decide what people are arguing. It really, really doesn't work that way. All that needs to be shown is that homosexual sex isn't different from heterosexual sex in any way that affects its ability to be loving/consensual/etc. And that much is obvious. It's a very strange move for you to defend homosexual sex from conservative detractors by showing that it is relevantly similar to heterosexual sex, when most of both kinds of sex turn out to be morally wrong. If you really held the set of beliefs you're claiming, you would point out to these conservatives that heterosexual sex, too, was for the most part wrong. But this is precisely what you did not do. I now cite a battery of quotes as evidence. Show nested quote +But if you look at actual ethical philosophy, and science, and really the human understanding of goodness in general, homosexuality is just so obviously not an evil thing. Show nested quote +In what way are homosexuals disrespecting their bodies or treating their bodies poorly? Show nested quote +If homosexual sex is so sinful, then why the fuck would God make homosexual people to begin with? Show nested quote +There is literally no way to reconcile a good Creator (who created homosexuals) with the explicit forbidding of any and all homosexual actions, given that homosexuality is equivalent in every sense to the sexuality of heterosexual people, just with inverted targets. I don't think you're twisting around your views on purpose, but I do think you emphasize and deemphasize certain parts of your largely unstable network of beliefs in order to better your argumentative position at any given time. It sure looks here like you're saying that homosexuality isn't for the most part sinful, but this is precisely what you just admitted (unless you also hold that most homosexual sex is not promiscuous, a very dubious claim). In fact, assuming you aren't being facetious in epousing theism, it seems as though you're specifically giving arguments against the possibility of homosexuality mostly wrong. But, again, you just conceded that it was mostly wrong. How did you do that? Why make arguments saying that God couldn't rightfully condemn homosexuals initially, and then later agree with me that most homosexual activity is morally wrong? That's sure a funny thing to do.
Here's a funny thing to do: try to poke holes in someone else's argument without presenting a counter-argument. Are you trying to assert that homosexuality is sinful? If so, just come right out and say that.
|
On October 24 2013 15:18 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 11:35 farvacola wrote:Haha no problem, I push that book on most people whom I've met, just ask Sam Which translation did you read? I see there's a new one that's not by Anscombe. Should I try and get it or should I just read the free Anscombe translation off the internet?
The revised fourth edition Anscombe is the one I use, but the one available on the internet for free should work just fine. One of my go to professor friends on the subject said the new one is of middling difference and probably not worth the time given discrepancies in how it would read against the veneer of Anscombe's convention, which has proven to be more than sufficient I'd say.
|
On October 24 2013 11:11 Shiori wrote:
I'm arguing that homosexuality in itself is not sinful. I am arguing that homosexual sex is not innately immoral. There is no inconsistency, here. Homosexuality is not in any part sinful. Homosexual sex can be done in an immoral manner and in a moral manner. That's all I'm arguing and have ever been arguing. Homosexuality itself isn't sinful.
I'm not really sure where the idea that we need to look at average promiscuity came from, but, if anything, that seems decidedly un-Kantian.
Again, you might think this is what you are arguing, but this position is simply not tenable given your other beliefs. You've reduced it down to a difference in words that does not mesh with your earlier arguments that e.g. a benevolent creator God would not make homosexual sex a sinful thing and then go ahead and make homosexuals. Clearly a tightrope can be walked here, the one I've described earlier, but the position lacks intuitive support and has to argue on the one hand that some homosexual sex is good/permissible while subscribing to the position that the majority of sex is bad, and on the other hand that a good deal of heterosexual sex is impermissible. Especially your earlier arguments about why God would make people who were gay if gay sex was a bad thing - you yourself have agreed that gay sex is a bad thing. It takes a lot of very strange nitpicking to show that really it's fine for God to condemn gay sex (which is performed by homosexuals because of their biology) because it's promiscuous and wrong, but it wouldn't be okay for God to condemn gay sex (which is performed by homosexuals because of their biology) because it's gay.
Put differently, your earlier arguments about the contrast b/t a benevolent creator God and homosexual sex acts being immoral are not compatible with the position that most sex is immoral and that there is a benevolent creator God.
On October 24 2013 15:47 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 11:01 Lixler wrote:On October 24 2013 10:52 Shiori wrote:This is not a belief that any modern defender of homosexual sex holds. I hold this. I don't think it's worthy of the death penalty, or anything, but I don't think it's indicative of integrity ,either. You can't just decide what people are arguing. It really, really doesn't work that way. All that needs to be shown is that homosexual sex isn't different from heterosexual sex in any way that affects its ability to be loving/consensual/etc. And that much is obvious. It's a very strange move for you to defend homosexual sex from conservative detractors by showing that it is relevantly similar to heterosexual sex, when most of both kinds of sex turn out to be morally wrong. If you really held the set of beliefs you're claiming, you would point out to these conservatives that heterosexual sex, too, was for the most part wrong. But this is precisely what you did not do. I now cite a battery of quotes as evidence. But if you look at actual ethical philosophy, and science, and really the human understanding of goodness in general, homosexuality is just so obviously not an evil thing. In what way are homosexuals disrespecting their bodies or treating their bodies poorly? In what way is homosexuality a "deficiency of good," then? If homosexual sex is so sinful, then why the fuck would God make homosexual people to begin with? There is literally no way to reconcile a good Creator (who created homosexuals) with the explicit forbidding of any and all homosexual actions, given that homosexuality is equivalent in every sense to the sexuality of heterosexual people, just with inverted targets. I don't think you're twisting around your views on purpose, but I do think you emphasize and deemphasize certain parts of your largely unstable network of beliefs in order to better your argumentative position at any given time. It sure looks here like you're saying that homosexuality isn't for the most part sinful, but this is precisely what you just admitted (unless you also hold that most homosexual sex is not promiscuous, a very dubious claim). In fact, assuming you aren't being facetious in epousing theism, it seems as though you're specifically giving arguments against the possibility of homosexuality mostly wrong. But, again, you just conceded that it was mostly wrong. How did you do that? Why make arguments saying that God couldn't rightfully condemn homosexuals initially, and then later agree with me that most homosexual activity is morally wrong? That's sure a funny thing to do. Here's a funny thing to do: try to poke holes in someone else's argument without presenting a counter-argument. Are you trying to assert that homosexuality is sinful? If so, just come right out and say that.
Yes. I am asserting that most homosexual activity is wrong because most homosexual activity is promiscuous and does not satisfy the CI.
|
Where I differ with this view mostly has to do with where we go after realizing that many (if not most or all) extended questions in metaphysical philosophy are essentially language games that talk their way out of meaningful reference. Many would suggest that we simply pay attention to other things and give up these metaphysical pursuits in futility, whereas I think creative expression and breaking the rules of these language games in deliberate ways open up our ability to touch on difficult to speak of concepts.
I suppose it is almost banal to point out that regarding "natural language" as a limitation is a rather arbitrary frame of reference. I have always preferred to regard it as a cooperative component of reality created by the conscious mind, since what is "real" has no meaning outside of that context. There is a sense in which metaphysical debate can be seen as a red herring fixated on logical rather than existential truth, but there is also an anthropocentric sense in which the purely logical is a form of created existence, and a necessary one at that.
P.S. As a historian, one of the few axioms I hold to more or less rigidly is that of Burckhardt, when he called philosophical history a monstrous centaur: philosophy is the nichtgeschichte and history the nichtphilosophie. I would be happy to leave these kinds of threads alone, but these fellows here keep making so many mistakes!!!
|
argue on the one hand that some homosexual sex is good/permissible while subscribing to the position that the majority of sex is bad, and on the other hand that a good deal of heterosexual sex is impermissible
I have no idea what you find so objectionable about this. I seriously just don't make any distinction between homosexual and heterosexual sex when it comes to promiscuity. You seem to be under the impression that homosexual sex being "mostly promiscuous" (whatever that means; you still haven't actually defined promiscuity) implies that the act itself is necessarily immoral. I have no idea how that's supposed to follow. What's more, your own assertion (homosexual sex is immoral since most homosexual sex doesn't satisfy the CI) would invalidate heterosexual sex by the exact same token. Are you really going to play the "but procreation" card to exonerate heterosexual sex from the ridiculously constricting framework you've put on sexuality?
I am of the opinion that homosexual sex and heterosexual sex are, with respect to moral decision-making, perceived similarly by their participants. Some people have promiscuous sex. Some people don't. The proportion is irrelevant. What matters is whether and individual making a moral decision is doing so from a universalizable maxim, and you have no grounds whatsoever to forbid all homosexual sex on the grounds that lots of homosexuals are promiscuous, no more than you have the grounds to ban all heterosexual sex for the same reasons.
I'm not arguing that it's impossible for specific homosexual acts to be immoral. I'm arguing that it would be incoherent from a Creator God to define homosexual sex as necessarily evil (which is what IronManSC was arguing) when there's no reason to suggest that such a thing is true.
|
On October 24 2013 20:34 Lixler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 11:11 Shiori wrote:
I'm arguing that homosexuality in itself is not sinful. I am arguing that homosexual sex is not innately immoral. There is no inconsistency, here. Homosexuality is not in any part sinful. Homosexual sex can be done in an immoral manner and in a moral manner. That's all I'm arguing and have ever been arguing. Homosexuality itself isn't sinful.
I'm not really sure where the idea that we need to look at average promiscuity came from, but, if anything, that seems decidedly un-Kantian. Again, you might think this is what you are arguing, but this position is simply not tenable given your other beliefs. You've reduced it down to a difference in words that does not mesh with your earlier arguments that e.g. a benevolent creator God would not make homosexual sex a sinful thing and then go ahead and make homosexuals. Clearly a tightrope can be walked here, the one I've described earlier, but the position lacks intuitive support and has to argue on the one hand that some homosexual sex is good/permissible while subscribing to the position that the majority of sex is bad, and on the other hand that a good deal of heterosexual sex is impermissible. Especially your earlier arguments about why God would make people who were gay if gay sex was a bad thing - you yourself have agreed that gay sex is a bad thing. It takes a lot of very strange nitpicking to show that really it's fine for God to condemn gay sex (which is performed by homosexuals because of their biology) because it's promiscuous and wrong, but it wouldn't be okay for God to condemn gay sex (which is performed by homosexuals because of their biology) because it's gay. Put differently, your earlier arguments about the contrast b/t a benevolent creator God and homosexual sex acts being immoral are not compatible with the position that most sex is immoral and that there is a benevolent creator God. Show nested quote +On October 24 2013 15:47 ninazerg wrote:On October 24 2013 11:01 Lixler wrote:On October 24 2013 10:52 Shiori wrote:This is not a belief that any modern defender of homosexual sex holds. I hold this. I don't think it's worthy of the death penalty, or anything, but I don't think it's indicative of integrity ,either. You can't just decide what people are arguing. It really, really doesn't work that way. All that needs to be shown is that homosexual sex isn't different from heterosexual sex in any way that affects its ability to be loving/consensual/etc. And that much is obvious. It's a very strange move for you to defend homosexual sex from conservative detractors by showing that it is relevantly similar to heterosexual sex, when most of both kinds of sex turn out to be morally wrong. If you really held the set of beliefs you're claiming, you would point out to these conservatives that heterosexual sex, too, was for the most part wrong. But this is precisely what you did not do. I now cite a battery of quotes as evidence. But if you look at actual ethical philosophy, and science, and really the human understanding of goodness in general, homosexuality is just so obviously not an evil thing. In what way are homosexuals disrespecting their bodies or treating their bodies poorly? In what way is homosexuality a "deficiency of good," then? If homosexual sex is so sinful, then why the fuck would God make homosexual people to begin with? There is literally no way to reconcile a good Creator (who created homosexuals) with the explicit forbidding of any and all homosexual actions, given that homosexuality is equivalent in every sense to the sexuality of heterosexual people, just with inverted targets. I don't think you're twisting around your views on purpose, but I do think you emphasize and deemphasize certain parts of your largely unstable network of beliefs in order to better your argumentative position at any given time. It sure looks here like you're saying that homosexuality isn't for the most part sinful, but this is precisely what you just admitted (unless you also hold that most homosexual sex is not promiscuous, a very dubious claim). In fact, assuming you aren't being facetious in epousing theism, it seems as though you're specifically giving arguments against the possibility of homosexuality mostly wrong. But, again, you just conceded that it was mostly wrong. How did you do that? Why make arguments saying that God couldn't rightfully condemn homosexuals initially, and then later agree with me that most homosexual activity is morally wrong? That's sure a funny thing to do. Here's a funny thing to do: try to poke holes in someone else's argument without presenting a counter-argument. Are you trying to assert that homosexuality is sinful? If so, just come right out and say that. Yes. I am asserting that most homosexual activity is wrong because most homosexual activity is promiscuous and does not satisfy the CI.
Seems like your argument is built on your taking a leap and saying that most sex is promiscuous, i.e. treats the other as merely an object from which to obtain pleasure. Shiori then seems to have agreed with you that some sex is like that. You ostensibly agree but then continue as if he had said that all sex is like that. You can keep repeating your conclusion if you want but it's not very convincing when you have simply assumed that most, if not all sex, is performed merely for self-gratification.
|
Returning to the argument about the incoherence of God, let us depart from this Kantian orthodoxy for its own sake, because you are happy to ignore the extension of his thinking to sexual matters, and the theologial argument derived from classical tradition differs from Kantian ethics on many points.
Kant despises all forms of lustful behaviour, whereas in Christian thinking there is usually some sort of hierarchy of evils. The Kantian formulation is probably more politically correct nowadays, but let us ignore the sensations of political correctness, and moans about the innate "offensiveness" of an idea and stay on course.
The "procreation" card is literally essential here, although it must be modified from the assumptions hitherto given. God as the creator of a perfectly framed nature, has also supplied nature with a set of actions whose virtue derives from their optimal use. Thus actions which correlate with the essence of the thing is said to be natural action. Essence is what thing is said to be in respect to itself. Sex is not a gyrating act of physical contact between human bodies, it is not the release of endorphins in the process of erotic action, it is not even the act which expresses friendship or love. All of those things may be particular attributes of certain species of sex, but sex itself is essentially the reproductive act. Reproduction is inseparable from the essence of sex. This is just elementary Aristotle. Extrapolated into religious terms, reproduction is the cardinal purpose of sex in a divine sense.
Therefore unnatural sex is one which in the principle of action is corrupted from its intended use. In a genus, the worst form of corruption is the principle upon which all the rest depends. Under this reasoning, promiscuous homosexual sex is a worse kind of sin than promiscuous heterosexual sex, since the essential principle of sex is here not merely alloyed by subsidiary forms of corruption, it is removed all together and is itself the corruption.
The relationship you prefer to emphasise between love and sex modifies this argument, which I have no time right now to ponder, but those are in the main, the features of the Tomist's argument whereby homosexuality constitutes a revolt against divine order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
