Subject:
|
Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 16 Dec 2000 01:03:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
314 times
|
| |
|
|
> If you are going to argue against homosexuality and
> against relationships as being "unnatural" you are first
> going to have to establish what "natural" is, and PROVE it,
> or else your argument is just a statement of preference.
> Is it one which you wish to impose on others, presumably
> by force once you've convinced a majority of the electorate
> to go along, or were you just letting us know what your
> preference was? Based on the christian track record I'd
> suggest the former is more likely.
(and in another post)
> Arguing against certain behaviours on the grounds that
> they are not allowed by the church (which is what Steve is doing)
> requires a great deal of backstory to be proven before there is any
> hope of justifying imposition of restrictions on those that don't
> voluntarily subscribe to christian mores.
Mr. Pieniazek,
You issued this challenge to me in another thread concerning sexual ethics.
Perhaps you missed my note to Kevin which - to some degree - agrees with
your concerns:
---
The reasoning behind the sexual morality that Christianity embraces is
broadly religious, that's true (and there are other theological points that
could be discussed here). But so, I would argue, is any objective morality
(as some participants of this board, on the other side of the debate, have
aptly pointed out)...
---
Now your objections raise some questions for you, Mr. Pieniazek; for
example, you write as if "imposing preferences by force" is a thing we
*ought not to do*.
Now, as far as I can tell, you haven't given us any account of moral (or
rational, for that matter) oughts, sir - at least not in our brief exchanges
to date. Modifying your own statements with this in mind, we arrive at: "If
you are going to argue [morally, rationally] against persons with
preferences they are willing to impose (by force, perhaps), you are first
going to have to establish what an 'ought' is, and PROVE it, or else your
argument is just a statement of preference."
In other words, if you are going to voice the objections you have -
objections which seem to have certain moral (or rational) standards in
mind - your worldview is going to have to account for them.
If these standards are more than preferences in your understanding, then my
case for sexual ethics (with that background), I believe, has intuitive
appeal apart from its direct ties to Christianity. Again, I commented
briefly on this in my explanation to Kevin:
---
"One flesh" communion - as a guide to sexual morality - is rationally
available, however, apart from its more narrow ties to particular religious
traditions. It is evident enough that civilizations across history have
recognized some form of marriage (even favoring monogamous heterosexual
marriage) and many have outright rejected deviations from that standard.
---
I didn't say, "Here's how it is because Jesus said so-and-so, or because the
church said so-and-so," as you are suggesting. More than that, I made
certain observations about human biology, and assuming that some objective
moral standards regarding behavior are in play (part of the "furniture of
the universe", if you prefer), I think this is at least the beginning of a
rational defense of the sexual ethic I sought to explain.
Think for a minute about someone like Larry Arnhart, author of _Darwinian
Natural Right_ (a work which has been referenced by atheists in recent
debates), whom I think might disagree with you. In a recent exchange with
Christian theists touching on evolution, design, and morality, Arnhart
wrote:
---
I see modern biological studies of human nature and morality as a
continuation of an intellectual tradition begun by Aristotle that favors a
conservative view of social order as rooted in natural human propensities.
Aristotle was a biologist, and he concluded from his biological studies of
animal behavior that all social cooperation arises ultimately as an
extension of the natural impulses to sexual coupling and parental care of
the young. Thomas Aquinas continued Aristotle's biological reasoning about
ethics in defending his idea of "natural law" or "natural right." "Natural
right," Aquinas declared, "is that which nature has taught all animals."
Sexual mating and parental care belong to natural law because they are
natural inclinations that human beings share with some other animals. And
although the rationality of human beings sets them apart from other animals,
human reason apprehends natural inclinations such as mating and parenting as
good. Marriage as constituted by customary or legal rules is uniquely human,
Aquinas indicates, because such rules require a cognitive capacity for
conceptual reasoning that no other animals have. But even so, such rules
provide formal structure to desires that are ultimately rooted in the animal
nature of human beings.
---
Arnhart, in other words (although I don't know if Arnhart agrees with the
position I attempted to lay out for Kevin) believes that our biology defines
our nature, and therefore a natural right or standard for morality, sexual
and otherwise. As human beings - because of our membership in the species
homo sapiens - there are parameters to the good life. He seems to believe
that the teleology of human morality - the "oughtness" of our behaviors - is
rooted locally (via biology) rather than cosmically (via God). Not that I
necessarily agree with Arnhart's position in full (not that I've heard his
case in full, even, to be fair to him), but the point is that even those not
devoted to Christianity (or theism), I think, could find some merit in what
I've argued.
Getting back to the alternatives before us, if you (on the other hand)
reject the idea of moral realism, then it seems to me that forcing one's
views on another according to preference is entirely legitimate - and
appealing to the majority rule to do that seems no more or less appropriate
to me than any other means available. In such a world, in the absence of
compelling standards, pursuing personal preferences is all we're left with.
In a world of objective, knowable moral standards, however, things are
different. We can argue - and have weight to our arguments - about what the
good life is, and how we can best attain it. That's the reality I believe
exists, and if anything, it both attributes significant value to the
individuals I disagree with, provides a charge of accountability to all
individuals including myself, and provides the possibility, at least, of
achieving something better for themselves if I am wrong.
Back to you. Take care,
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
| (...) Feel free to call me Lar or Larry. (...) No, I don't think this is necessarily true (whether others agree with it or not). I am not a moral relativist. I think there is an objective morality that is proper and good for humans to embrace. I've (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
