Subject:
|
Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:55:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
363 times
|
| |
|
|
In response to "Kevin Wilson" <kwilson_tccs@compuserve.com> in message
news:G5sE42.BEG@lugnet.com...
Kevin,
You recently wrote:
> 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 you restate it yourself in one sentence?
I appreciate your effort at understanding my position. That's a tall order.
I'll try to be as clear as possible, but to do that I'll express it as an
argument rather than in a single sentence.
(1) There is an archetypical human nature - a design, or
'ought-to-be-ness' - that we can discover and know and which sets the moral
parameters of our lives.
(2) In the case of human sexuality, which involves the interaction of our
bodies as persons, there is a natural teleology to sex evident in the fact
that one man and one woman - not more and not less - can act together to
procreate a child.
(3) Homosexuality, in this light, is like driving a car on the bottom of the
ocean; it is a violation of the design implicit in our biology.
(4) Human sexuality is morally significant, so behaviors inconsistent with
that significance (as embodied in the natural teleology) are immoral.
Another way to say this might be that (heterosexual monogamous) marriage -
in the fullest sense - is an intrinsic good for human beings and that
rejection of its defining principles (interpersonal unity) is therefore
wrong.
(5) Therefore, homosexuality is immoral.
The problem with trying to put the position concisely is that, in forums
like this, it raises a litany of objections, which I think can be answered,
but which require a good bit of explanation when they are so foreign to
people (even people in the church). Some folks - probably yourself
included - will object to the first statement which is in contradiction to
their worldview. I think this is really the root of the problems I've seen
in responses so far, and it is what I was trying to get at in my discussion
with Larry - and what I'll take up with you in some measure below. I hope
he'll pick up the discussion and attempt to wrestle with my arguments in a
subsequent post. So let me say that if (1) doesn't hold, then I agree with
just about every objection that has been made thus far. If (1) is granted,
and (2) seems pretty straightforward, then that goes a long way toward the
conclusion, although there are other objections that could be raised here.
What, in your view, are the conditions necessary for "moral sex"? What are
the morally sufficient reasons to engage in sex with another individual? Is
there anything off-limits in your view, or is everything under the sun
available...from unmarried sex to rape to pedophilia to beastiality, etc.?
I wrote to Larry and said:
> > 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?
> My question is, why *should* it be affected? Why
> draw a *moral* conclusion from *this* biological
> fact, when many moral conclusions have no biological
> facts behind them (eg the morality of taking a bribe)
> and many biological facts have no moral conclusions
> drawn from them (eg the fact that women become
> infertile beyond a certain age, and men are fertile for
> decades longer).
I think that's a good question - hopefully I've answered it in a cursory
fashion above: sex obviously involves our physical bodies, and it is morally
significant in itself or in relation to marriage. I think we can say, with
this in mind, that we should be mindful of the relevant biological facts -
facts that obviously separate heterosexual from homosexual relationships -
because they can have moral implications.
> > 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?
>
> You seem to be assuming that an atheists moral view must
> derive from the naturalistic world, Steve. Why? It seems to
> me that morality is a human invention, and not part of the
> naturalistic world outside humanity at all, therefore it cannot
> be derived from it.
Typically, atheists believe that the natural universe, of which humans are a
part, is all there is. Metaphysically, human beings can be reduced to and
explained completely by their physical makeup - and ideally in terms of the
natural sciences: physics, chemistry, etc. This yields the IS/OUGHT problem
if you believe that there really are "oughts", and I take Larry to mean that
he does believe in such things. Even if you believe that morality is only a
human invention, you still have to come up with some account of how the
'oughtness' of that invention works practically, and it should coincide with
our commonsense understanding of the term. If I say, "Kevin, you should
(ought to) have helped that woman across the street," what does that mean
for the naturalist?
I'm going to take your statement at face value: if morality is only a human
invention, Kevin, then I have no compelling reason (apart from my own
existential fulfillment, however brief) to accept your vision of sexuality,
or even hear your case. Christian morality (however untrue) and even its
imposition on those who disagree would be just as legitimate as any other
moral invention; its rightness or wrongness is all made up, you see, and if
you can make up one morality to suit your interests, I can make up another.
And if the culture again desired to limit or forbid your style of sexual
endeavor - to limit marriage or adoption to heterosexual couples, or to
reinstate laws against (forgive me) sodomy, for example - then you have no
way to appeal to those who simply choose a different moral system that suits
them. There is no standard to help us arbitrate between moralities. Worse
yet, those who dislike homosexuals could have them imprisoned, or tortured,
or killed, and so on for little or no reason.
And hey, why stop with homosexuals? I think you know where this view
leads...
So why believe that morality is only an invention? And why even ask me the
questions you are if there is nothing of real, objective significance, in
the end, to be gained or lost?
On the other hand, if there are things that - for all people, in all places,
across time - are really right or wrong and really fulfilling or
destructive, apart from what we think individually or collectively, then you
would have an argument to make; you would have a means of appeal to which we
are all ultimately accountable. Your life as a human being would be
valuable apart from some stipulation within an invented morality, and there
would be a good life that we could work together to achieve.
Christianity, right or wrong in the details, at least provides you with this
much. Philosophically, it a mistake of far greater enormity to say that
there is no objective right or wrong than to say that such and such a
particular behavior should be off limits.
Take care,
Steve
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
| (...) Jumping in here, I'm not sure I agree with (1) or (2). The human species can be defined by both its shared characteristics (we're clever monkeys that walk around and grab things) and the variety in our population (both genetic and cultural). (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
| Steve Thomas wrote in message ... (...) the (...) You're right that I have a problem with (1). However, even leaving that aside, I see a missing step (or implied assumption) between 2 and 3, which is that procreation is the *only* purpose of sex. If (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
