Subject:
|
Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Dec 2000 01:15:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
283 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Thomas writes:
> > 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,
Feel free to call me Lar or Larry.
> 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)...
> ---
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 foundered in the past
when trying to post a derivation that was free of logical inconsistencies,
but I'm fairly convinced that such a derivation exists. And the morality I
attempt to practice is objective, but non religious in nature.
Scott Arthur, in one of his more lucid and well behaved moments, posted a
reference to work by David Freidman on some of the issues with a strict
property rights based system, but I still think it's a good point to start.
> 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*.
Indeed I do. It's a fundamental tenet of my morality actually. Once we've
established what rights each of us have, it's one thing for the state to
initiate the use of force to protect rights (and one which I support under
strictly limited circumstances) and QUITE ANOTHER for the state to initiate
the use of force to impose preferences.
I'm against the latter in all circumstances.
> 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.
I'm not sure what you are asking for, here. The "ten commandments" of
objectivists, perhaps? In a previous thread (prior to D. Friedman being
brought to my attention) I was arguing that they boil down to one: "Thou
shalt not steal"....
> 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.
It does. But the onus is on you, the one who is attempting to forcibly
impose preferences, to show that it is *just* to do so, rather than on me,
to show that it is *just* to be left alone. YOU, sir, are the one proposing
the initiation of force, not me.
> 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:
They are not, and there is no intuitive appeal that I've been able to
ascertain in your case for sexual ethics. Rather, it seems limiting and
restrictive in possibilities.
> ---
> "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.
> ---
And I'm not sure what that proves, except that many civilizations (including
for example, both the US and the UK as currently constituted) feel it's OK
to impose preferences. I don't feel that way and I only "go along" I don't
grant my sanction to that imposition.
> 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.
That's what most christians usually say. So stipulated that you did not,
however.
> 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.
Not totally following you here.
> 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),
The fact that some atheist somewhere (remember, I'm an agnostic who thinks
atheism has a stronger case, not an atheist) holds a particular view does
not automatically make it correct in my worldview, nor does it require me to
defend it.
> 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.
OK, so stipulated for now... without close examination, I will allow that it
does seem to make sense, so far.
> ---
>
> 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.
I'm not sure I'd go that far.
> 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.
Again, just because he's an atheist or because some atheists like him...
that doesn't mean I agree and especially does not mean that I accept the
conclusions you impute to him.
> 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.
I'm not sure exactly what moral realism is but I don't *think* I'm it. Like
I said, I'm NOT a relativist, I think there are objective standards for good.
> 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.
OK, now you're back on track, and now I agree. But you haven't gotten to
your desired conclusion yet. That is, while we agree that the good life is a
desirable thing, it's a very very long leap to the conclusion that because
something is biologically impossible for our species (when treated as
animals), that the same something is prima facie bad.
I agree that we can use reasoning about animal behaviours when we examine
rights, but not when we examine social mores that involve no rights violations.
> 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.
This is shaping up to be a well thought out discussion, although I'm not
sure I'll be able to devote as much time to it as I'd like...
> Back to you. Take care,
>
> Steve
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
| In response to "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> in message news:G5qotE.M0q@lugnet.com... Larry, I appreciate the interaction you've provided. Before going any further, I'm glad that you're not a relativist (which means, in turn, that you (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Shou shalt not steal?
|
| (...) Think I missed that thread-- But I'm gonna come in late and argue something perhaps a little more basic: Inter-human morality all boils down to: "Thou shalt respect others." Which really works great, I think. "Thou shalt not kill" => "Thou (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
| (...) (and in another post) (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 16-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
