Subject:
|
Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Dec 2000 23:17:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
312 times
|
| |
|
|
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 are a
moral realist); believe it or not, I think that puts us in a circle of
agreement that isn't available to many today. In discussing moral issues in
different forums, I've run into a striking number of individuals (which
seems to be increasing) - usually atheists - who do not agree with us on
that point. It's a great relief to me to find someone like yourself who
does acknowledge an objective morality, even though we may disagree strongly
on the specifics.
One more note: I was just wondering about your style of reading. When I
read through your response, you seemed to be taking things piecemeal, rather
than reading through my entire line of thought and then commenting. I could
be wrong, and if I am you have my apologies, but it seemed to me that I
answered some of your questions/concerns as I progressed through the post.
I would just recommend, if I could, a "once through" which I think may
facilitate further discussion so that we're clear on what requires further
attention. I'm afraid that comes off as somewhat condescending, but I don't
intend it to be - really. I'll leave it at that, and apologize again for
any offense.
I'll pare down our recent exchange a bit to get to the more interesting
aspects:
> > ---
> > 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.
I'm sure you recognize the distinction between believing in and practicing
an objective morality, and being able to account for that same system;
meta-ethical foundations are what has to be discussed. Later in your post,
you wrote:
> 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 don't think there is any confusion about the biological facts that I
addressed. You've acknowledged that there is an inherent difference (apart
from any tampering we might imagine) between heterosexual intercourse and
homosexual acts. One question I might ask is, with this obvious difference
in human nature, why does your understanding of morality go unaffected by
this difference?
I take your reference to the "very very long leap" from biological facts
(our biology as is) to a behavior that seems to neglect those facts being
"prima facie bad" (i.e. "ought not") to be a claim to the IS/OUGHT fallacy.
That is very definitely a leap, I agree with you.
But this leap bites both ways: How does one with atheist tendencies overcome
this problem _in general_, as it applies to the entire project of objective
morality? How does one move from the naturalistic world, as it is, to the
world of oughts so often unrealized? What duty can atoms have to be in
position X rather than Y?
The naturalist's world is a world confined to the causal nexus. One
proximate cause inexorably leads to another without regard for purpose -
without preference for one end over another. Your actions - all your
attempts to live morally - within this world are not of your own making;
they were already incipiently defined as far back as the beginning of the
universe; they are only the logical outworking of what had to be. Explain
to me, Larry, how you can believe that you can do anything other than what
you are determined to do (I'll grant some random factors to the discussion,
if you like, but I don't think that helps matters at all), and therefore how
"oughts" - moral or rational - can make sense at all in your world.
> 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.
I'm curious as to how this would not involve the same IS/OUGHT fallacy if we
are to examine what is - animal behavior - to derive what we ought to do as
persons. How is that different from what I'm doing in pointing out factual
differences in our sexual equipment/behavior to help us discover the moral
requirements thereof?
I'm also quite curious as to what you mean when you talk of rights. What is
a right? Is it inalienable, as America's founders penned in the
Declaration, or is it only a matter of positive law? Why believe we have
(property) rights to begin with?
> > 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.
As far as I can tell, I've attempted to do nothing of the kind. I've never
said one way or the other what I prefer sexually; that's entirely beside the
point. I may very well desire to indulge in pornography, or promiscuity,
for example, but my worldview puts those things out of bounds. On the
contrary, I've posed what have been understood as _arguments_ by the
individual on this board who would be most affected by my conclusions thus
far. And I've given at least two points of evidence - theorists like
Arnhart and moral tendencies of societies in different cultures
historically - to indicate that others might be recognizing some of the same
principles at work in my reasoning. Now I realize that so far you haven't
found them to be compelling, and I understand that you might prefer (sic) to
call my views mere preferences, but that hardly justifies classifying them
as such. Call them bad arguments if you will, but dismissing them as
preferences is hardly accurate.
(In that spirit, I could just as well refer to sexual egalitarianism as a
preference that you intend to impose by force on those who disagree with it,
and we'll get nowhere in our discussions over the facts of the matter.)
BTW, thanks for the "Steve Thomas seems up to something interesting" remark,
which I'll take as a compliment. Hopefully, you found this post to be in
the same vein. I appreciate the opportunity to debate with someone like
yourself who sees worldview issues as important and worth debating - even
disagreeing - over.
Thanks and take care,
Steve
P.S. Another board participant alerted me to the fact that my posts are
coming off at the wrong times for some reason. So far, I haven't been able
to track down the problem. I tried to post from the web but I'm having
problems with an old username there and can't post. My apologies, everyone.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
| Before leaping in to this part of the discussion, Steve, let me see if I have understood your point correctly: "Homosexual sex cannot naturally result in progeny, therefore it is immoral." Is that a correct restatement of your argument? If not, can (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
