You are confused because you try to bring the theism/atheism in every issue and assume that othes are also hardwired to do the same. You need to get out from this illusion.
Secondly, if there were no concept of God, as N suggested, how would you decide morality? Just assume that there is no God and we live and die here and argue for that only.
If total freedom brings more happiness, joy and satisfaction to this worldly life of the people in the long run, so be it. In this thread, that is the only benchmark of goodness.
You are still struggling with the issue of god.
How monkeys decide their morality? They do not have any concept of the god but they still live in society and have some social rules too, whether right or wrong. I am asking to do the same.
No, that is not the purpose of this either. I just want to know and let others too that where we stand collectively as a society. It does not mean that i am going to follow that in my life.
After the poll will be completed, i will argue for my case and let the opponents counter that. Those, who have voted will participate and see that conversation and adjust their vote accordingly.
Means, right now, it is merely an opinion poll, not the actual result. That will come later after discussion.
You are needlessly confusing yourself. No matter how religious i may be, i will never use the argument that this is good because God said this to plead by case. In the same way, the opposite side will not allowed to use the argument that it is good just because it brings more liberty. They have to show how more liberty brings betterment.
I’m less interested in the particular discussion of this thread than I am in the issue of morality in general. I think there are problems to the rational discussion of morality because it must begin with an assumption, and so doesn’t deal with truth in the same sense as other issues for philosophy which ask “what exists?” Morality is conventional, and it is based on either prejudices or the subjective “good” for different individuals, or a combination of them.
When you say
What exactly consititues betterment? Betterment for who and in whose opinion? If you disregard any particular opinion in favor of a majority, then you are just back at majority prejudice and not in any sense a truth.
I would be interested in exploring this aspect of the conversation, it might help to develop a clearer idea of what is understood as “the good”, and if that good can in any sense be universal and objective, or must remain based on prejudice and subjective good to differing individuals.
Yet that is not what I’m doing, or why I’m doing it. I think the only thing wrong with incest is that it increases the chance of birth defects. I also think this is why the Westermarck effect evolved: the kids one tends to be that close with during those years are usually one’s siblings, half-siblings, and (in extended families) one’s cousins etc. In any case, the Westermarck effect makes people less inclined to consent to incest, so it’s no argument against consensual incest. The only argument against it is the risk I mentioned.
No, it’s like this. If stealing is fine, then playing one’s own judge is fine, too. So if stealing is fine, one should still warn thieves of the risk of getting lynched for their theft. Something like that. A law could be passed that people who get babies with birth defects from incest are not eligible to the same amount of government handouts (if any) for that kind of thing. The same thing goes for smoking: smokers who get lung cancer or something should probably not be eligible to the same amount of Obamacare (if any) as non-smokers.
So you want your government to ban smoking so that you might quit? You really are a slave, then.
I don’t. And I certainly don’t think it’s wrong.
You mean, “than what you feel is right or wrong”. My feeling that something is right or wrong does not make it so.
Please read carefully and pay attention to what is said before replying. Do not go by what you think about me.
It is not about what i see right or wrong. I am asking others about their opinion of right and wrong. I am merely explaining my intention behind those options so they can choose exactly what they want and not get confused by the semantics.
The essence of no. 4 is that everything is right and should allowed. But, the reality is that everyone has his own likings and disliking. It simply means that the only benchmark should be personal POV. One should be allowed to choose his personal rights and wrongs, even if that may not be in the accordance with other’s perception of rights and wrongs. But, even then, others are not supposed to object that.
Realize, it is not the case that all supporters of no. 4 would have same sexual preferences but they certainly agree on one point that one should not dictate terms to others.
You are right as it actually happens. Everyone will start with some presumption and then try to justify its presuming as the best one but they usually they do not have any other argument besides their own presumption.
I am trying to avoid this problem by asking not to use their presumption as their ultimate argument. I am asking them to show how their presumption can benefit the society besides itself with the day to day issues of the life.
Like a religious person would argue that religious definition of morality is good because God says so. And, a liberal would argue that liberty is good because it brings freedom. But, i am asking both to show what else they have to contribute to the society.
To me, the simple definition of the betterment is anything that brings more and everlasting joy, happiness, calmness and harmony to people’s day to day life in this very world.
I am not interested what will happen after that. And, that puts the concept of the God out from the equation.
Betterment for everyone, for the society as a whole. I am not avoiding any opinion, whether minority or majority.
If the minority opinion is better for the society, so be it. But, thay have to explain how it is better and can improve the people’s life.
You are welcome and that is precisely my intention too.
I do not agree with your line of argument at all. That is again political correctness to me.
If i know for sure that anything is wrong (stealing), i should not trun my face from it assuming that if one steals, the law would punish him. To me, that is escapism. The same applies to your other anologies too.
I already accepted that i am a slave of my habit. But, who is not?
Anyone, who has any bad habit, either physical of philosophical, is slave. At least, i am aware of my slavery and honest about it too. But, what about those philosophical slaves, who are still unaware about it?
In that case, your choice of No. 4 is justified.
That is true but that raises many questions.
In the case, how it can be decided what is actually right or wrong, irrespective on any individual’s opinion?
Or, should we leave this decision totally to individuals?
No, the confusion here revolves around the fact that you and I think about these relationships in very different ways. Then you assume that it is I who am confused because you are not.
Your OP offers options for folks to choose. The choices revolve around what “should” be permitted with respect to homosexuality and incest.
Now, how could that not revolve in turn around the moral narratives individuals have acquired [existentially] regarding these behaviors?
And folks acquire and then predicate these moral agendas either on God or on Reason [philosophy sans God] or purely on whatever they perceive to be in their own best interest.
A “concept” of God? What about the actual existence of God? The assumptions I make about No God are derived precisely from the fact that no religionist has ever been able to demonstrate to me that his or her own God does in fact exist. At least not of late. And I am still very much confused about how someone who professes to believe in a God, the God, their God, would choose an option above that does NOT revolve around his religious convictions.
Again, how you separate concepts like “total freedom” from your religious convictions just seems strange to me.
In any event, any particular freedom that any particular individual chooses to exercise is going to be predicated first and foremost on the options he or she is actually able to act on.
Then we come to the part where we have to take into consideration the fact that in exercising particular options, the behaviors of individuals are going to come into conflict. Then what? How does “society” resolve this? What will the legal framework either prescribe or proscribe?
And then [from my perspective] we are back again to God or Reason or narcissism.
No, I am struggling to come up with an argument that might convince me that a particular God does in fact exist. And that in order to attain immortality, salvation, divine justice and the objective truth regarding the morality of homosexuality and incest, I must have faith in, believe in and/or worship and adore this God: the God, your God.
Monkeys [to the best of my knowledge] have very primitive concepts of self, morality, objectivity, death, salvation. Though more sophisticated than “lower life forms”, they are no where near contemplating these relationships as we do here.
I must be misunderstanding your point.
Again, if this is your motivation and intention here, okay, fine, that is your perogative. But I am not able make such a distinction myself. I am more interested instead in the actual existential conflicts that arise as a result of people thinking we either should or should not behave in certain ways. And these behaviors are often predicated ON religious value.
In the interim, I will wait until you reach the part where you present your reasons for choosing option 1 above and then we can engage in an exchange that you suggest would be more suitable.
On the other hand, when you say…
…I become as mystified as ever. It would just make more sense [to me] to argue that your value judgments about human sexuality are derived from your belief in a particular God. Why? Because God is the key to achieving immortality, salvation, divine justice and an objective morality.
Instead, your approach would just have us arguing endlessly over the definion and the meaning of words like “liberty” and “betterment” and “good”. And these things mean different things to different people – people who have lived different lives in different historical, cultural and experiential contexts.
Or so it seems to me.
IS there a way in which to objectively embody Liberty and a Better Life? To do Good? Can the tools of philosophy provide us with a set of Reasons that encompass it?
No, I don’t think so. And everything involving what folks say we should or should not do sexually must begin here in my view.
How can one vote for something that’s both: implication and categorical meaning? That is why the source of confusion. If we vote, for #4, then it is uncertain what the vote means. Is it that the vote is for the freedom to choose whatever lifesyle, by virtue of one’s opinion; or, vote on the assumption that it is a statement of the opinion’s relative effect of that type of lifestyle? I think there should be two options here, #4 & #5.
I think this is a good place to start for an objective definition of betterment, unless someone else has an objection?
I am going to use this post to try to clarify a few things if possible.
I suppose what might come along are conflicting opinions (or even subjective experiences) about what brings happiness and joy. If such conflicts do arise I can forsee issues surrounding the possibility that what constitutes the conditions of happiness for some might impede upon the conditions of happiness for others. (Which is at least one of the reasons for social rules — I think this would also go for what is derogatorily referred to as social control, because that control would presumably be for the sake of another’s happiness even if (hypothetically) they were an ‘elite’ vying for dominance.)
How do we decide which rules are to stay, if the rules which support the happiness of some impede upon the happiness of others? Whose happiness is most important? You said that if the minority has the better opinion we will take it, but better opinion of what or for whom? The happiness of the majority, of the happiness of themselves? If it is the happiness of the whole and not just a part (be it greater or smaller), then you are back to the beginning of delinating rules which might impede upon the happiness of some.
If it is weighed by the happiness of the majority, is the majority capable of anything so long as it makes them all collectively happy, despite the effect on the minority? (For example, if there was a significantly large group, for the sake of this example though I will limit it to 150,000 people, and they decided they wanted slaves because it would make them happy to never have to do arduous work, such as making t-shirts or working in factories, could they rightfully enslave a group of say (for the sake of this example) 10,000, so the majority is about 93%) If there are limits on what the majority can demand, how will we deliniate the limit? If the limit is based on the happiness of the minority group, how will we deliniate what constitutes their happiness? (I address that further in a paragraph below beside the **.)
I think that is a concrete issue. In our society as it is today, I think social control is at least a partial factor in contributing to unhappiness — you can even, for example, understand social control in the form of “unofficial” rules, like fashion, if someone does not fit into a fashion they are excluded, which is liable to make them unhappy, otherwise they will have to fit in, which might cause a conflicting sense of self and also contribute to unhappiness…
**Another possible issue is, are we going to accept at face value what an individual considers to be the conditions of their happiness, or will an assumption arise that people might not know what is best for themselves? I think that is a concrete issue because I can personally relate to both sides of that argument. Let’s just say that sometimes I believe that I know what would make me happy, but upon the event of enacting it I realize it did not make me happy at all, possibly it might make me feel altogether worse (though that is not necessary).
If we took this side of the argument and said that sometimes people don’t know what the best for themselves is, can it then be guarenteed that someone else could possibly know what is best for them? If an ‘objective outsider’ (for the sake of argument, let’s say an “expert”) prescribes a mode of action to someone in place of the act they thought they desire, and the action prescribed by the expert leads to unhappiness, how will we then resolve the issue?
Again, i asked voters assuming that they wil use their subjective view to vote. It is given by me. Why do you see any problem it in? Secondly, no matter, how much they try to be objective about their decision, it will always be subjective, unless they would not come across to other view points and discuss.
imb, we are not going to discuss the validity of God in this thread. Those believers may be wise or even fools. But, all that is irrelevant here as they are not supposed to use God’s directions as their argument.
You are again sticking with the same glue. The benchmark of the framework is not freedom but more happiness, joy, pleasure and calmness to the worldly life of the people. All point of views will be tested by this standard only.
All that is not pertinent with this thread. We are not discussing about the god here.
That analogy was the reply of your argument how one can think about the morality without god. If the monkeys can establish society and morality without god, why humans cannot?
No, I will not use any religious premise to plead my case, because that would not yield anything. The first counter will come from the other side to give the proof of god before using his directions, and the whole discussion would be derailed.
Yes, that is precisely the part i want to discuss. I want to test all those different definitions of good and better.
No, there is certainly a way. And, it is not a complicated thing to judge either. You are needlessly making it complicated by putting to much intellectuality in it.
I give you a very simple example.
Say, there are two neighboring cities or almost same size and population, A and B. In the A, there are no good public facilities like roads, water, electricity etc. You cannot go in the night alone as you may be robbed. You cannot leave your house alone as there may be a theft. You have to be very watchful in the crowded places as someone may pick your pocket. You may not go out with the females of your families as goons may cause them trouble. You cannot live in your house peacefully as your neighbors are always ready to fight with you on one issue or other. You hesitate to send your children out as they may fall for bad company and so on.
On the other hand, B is relatively free from all these things. People are generally happy and use to live and interact peacefully with each other. Neighboorhood is good and so are the public places.
Now, if i ask you which city is better and you prefer to live?
Would you choose B without any hesitation or start investigating what the people of both cities think about the God, before making your decision?
That city B is my definition of good and better.
It is quite simple and straight. You need not to complicate it by provoking unnecessary philosophical viewpoints.
It cannot be clearer than that. Do not bring God into this as that is unwarranted here.
I told you excatly what my intention behind No. 4. You cannot disagree with the definition of option which i created and explaning it too.
Again, No. 4 means that everything should be legally and socially allowed. No matter what any other individual/group thinks about that. One is neither suposed to ditate terms not interfere in other’s life. Every mature individual is free to choose his/her sexual behavior, as far as it is with the mutual conset.
Basically, 1,2,and 3 are the subsets of one bigger option of some liberty and some restriction. On the other hand, 4 is for complete liberty. Voters need not to confuse about it and should see that in that light.
That is true that there may be many sub-options between 3 and 4, but it is not practically possible to create that much options.
One more thing. No 1 does not mean is that it in with complete accordance with religions. That option is also compromized to some extent. It does not restrict premartial sex, divorce, live-in relationship, becoming parents without marriage, abortion, oral sex, anal sex etc, while all these are not allowed in religions.
No 1 has only one restriction; keep it between two persons of opposite sex, everything should be allowed within that.
I have explained above why your point of view here is strange to me. And how it is different from my own.
Above you noted:
After the poll will be completed, i will argue for my case and let the opponents counter that. Those, who have voted will participate and see that conversation and adjust their vote accordingly.
Okay, fine. I will drop out of this thread then and wait until you take up the actual task of defending the option you chose here. Option 1. I will presume however that at this time you will be willing to connect those dots that seem of the utmost importance to me. And that [in my view] certainly includes the relationship between the behaviors we choose here and now and the moral font we choose in turn to defend this.
with love,
sanjay
[/quote
]
Sanjay, I have come across a way to clarify this forum, and hope at the same time, support an answer to objectons by both Lambiguous, and myself. It is an indirect way to do it, and have to reference George Steinerwhomi may not quote or paraphrase, but refer to further to his ,“On Difficulty” Oxford U Press, 1978. Called to other task ger back to try to elucidate.
The alleged fear/charge, that homosexuality will not stop there, but progress to incest, then bestiality then to sado masochism, is valid. You are right, all the sources verify this proposition. In fact, it has still other venues to progress to. Next comes power
plays, for dominance, absolutely political, a stretch
for the power struggle involved inherent in sado-masochism. In fact, the last struggle for political control, comes as any other struggle. It is based on
the very simply understood concept of survival of the fittest, within the evolutionary matrix. All of the below are sub structures which evolved out of a non conscious movement toward a slowly conscious
processes.
Now we live in an age of deconstruction, where generations do not understand the subsumed
structural development, all based on varying slowly evolving models. Retroactively, the process does not progress by similar models, but an almost model-less differential process, where only those variables are
omitted in the sequence, which absolutely are logically necessary for the sake of political expediencey. In other words, once the can is
opened, the conetns of it can not be put back.
What has this to do with the forum? The very basic
model of aesthetic moralism is based on the
boundaries of consciousness, as atypified by Narcissus, and his mythic travails. Homosexuality is the next step, where modeing breaks off from the
identity(self) and projected to the other. Then comes
the incestual self, the projection to the other’s closest relative. The reason for this step, is that closest relatives assure acceptance on other then dissimilar
levels, they will accept the self (even as others reject
it) because they are familial, familiar, and garner some positive affect.
Now the point is, as political specificity , resuts
from the general S&M, as the final general arbiter of
the affect, where specificity is required, the agenda becomes manifest, as defense against the bounderies which curtail the negative effects of S&M.
This is why the de-designation of homosexuality was deemed a necessary safety valve against the
repressive constraints of the socia economic matrix.
Steiner does not go this far, but it can be implied from the progression of not only the effects, but of Freudian economics which underly the defenses of
them.
At this point it becomes obvious that political
correctness as the result of the interrelation of the
economy of the ID, and the socio economy of tolerance vs symptom formation of designated successive models as boundaries, this process cannot
be undone step by step, only differentially with long
lost, forgotten logically induced variables. The unraveled archaic models themselves will be unrecognisable, and the process does not react
toward similar,managable models. There is no
eternal return. The ideal model, the original degraded toward an unrecognizable identity of a narcissitic base, results in the return to a point of an
anti myth, where the point is not that Naricissus can’t recognize his identity, but that he simply won’t,
because he can not. If her were to try, he would have to depoliticize into the realm of absolute chaos,
and insanity, where almost certainly HE would not
internalize or interject the consequences, but lash out, to get away from the obvious, and destroy the effects of the unhapiness , the Romantic dissilusion’s
ultimate betrayal, then to admit to Himself the failure
of the abberence as only a myth.
Therefore, for better or for worse, it has been a
long and steady decline, and if NO EXIT or
springboard to leap can be found, #4, is the obviously necessary way to vote.
I also welcome that but given the nature and tone of the discussion, i do not think that many would be interested. It is default human natrue to avoid complex issues and sidesteps from that, though you seem to be an exception.