Subject:
|
Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:27:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
378 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve Thomas wrote in message ...
> (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.
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 we accept that sex has
other purposes as well as procreation, and that homosexual sex (and other
forms of sex deemed immoral by your argument) fulfil some or all of these
other purposes, then 3 no longer holds.
In a previous post, you quoted from C. S. Lewis thusly:
> The monstrosity of sexual intercourse outside marriage is that those who
> indulge in it are trying to isolate one kind of union (the sexual) from all
> the other kinds of union which were intended to go along with it and make • up
> the total union. [This] attitude does not mean that there is anything • wrong>
> about sexual pleasure, any more than about the pleasure of eating. It • means
> that you must not isolate that pleasure and try to get it by itself, any
> more than you ought to try to get the pleasures of taste without swallowing
> and digesting, by chewing things and spitting them out again. [Mere
> Christianity (Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996): 96-97]
If one extends your argument to his example of isolating taste by chewing
things and spitting them out again, one would end up concluding that chewing
tobacco is immoral :-) Possibly even chewing gum, though maybe not - gum
chewers do swallow the resulting liquid, if not the gum itself. But the
distinction is as ridiculous as the conclusions.
> 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.?
Well, I would put my statement in a different form: rather than "when is it
OK to have sex", I would say "when is it not OK to have sex". The basic
assumptions are different - that the default is not to have sex, versus to
have sex. Having said that, my assumptions 4-7 in another post bear on this:
> 4. Harming others is bad (includes emotional/mental/physical harm)
> 6. Love is good. The more the better.
> 7. Pleasure is good (provided it doesn't harm others).
On this basis, any sex which is safe (does no harm), sane (all concerned are
in their right minds, not drugged or drunk, capable of giving informed
consent) and consenual (all concerned know what's going on and consent to it
without coercion) is OK. In your examples, that would make rape (no
consent), pedophilia (not capable of giving informed consent, coercion) and
bestiality (no informed consent, although some people argue about this) off
limits. Unmarried sex, homosexual sex, AND married sex would all be OK or
not depending on whether they met the conditions. A husband getting his wife
drunk so she'd say yes and not "have a headache" would be immoral under
these conditions whereas SSC homosexual sex would not.
> > 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 • <snip>
>
> 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.
Good argument. Howver, it does not follow from "morality is a human
invention" that "all moralities invented by humans are equally valid". I can
guess your next point :-) how do we judge which humanly-invented morality
is "best" without an absolute standard to judge it against? This goes back
to Dave's explanation of the social development of morality in another post,
although I would put it rather differently:
"Morality is that set of behaviours which produce the greatest good balanced
between the community as a whole and the individuals within it".
This accounts for the observed fact that morality as perceived by a
community *is* diffferent across time and space. It also accounts for the
conflicts we sometimes encounter where the good of the community is in
conflict with the good of an individual, and a balance has to be struck, and
for the "refinement" of morality as a community develops. Prohibitions
against stealing and killing developed very early, whereas methods of
disciplining children are still changing quite radically as we learn more
about the effects on adults (and the results for the community) of their
treatment as children. New problems continue to arise which need to be dealt
with, such as the morailty or otherwise of genetically engineering foods
and distributing them without labelling as such.
It also handles the problem of a group of people deciding their morality
allows/requires them to kill or a torture a specific group of people
(whoever they might be). A group like this even if isolated from other
groups who would apply sanctions, is damaging itself by killing off its
members, not just in the obvious way of losing skills and reducing the gene
pool, but by accustoming its members to killing off subgroups. As you say,
we all know where that 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?
Just because something is a human invention does not mean it has no real,
objective significance. Mathematics is a human invention but it has a great
deal of real, objective significance.
> 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.
That's quite true. Unfortunately it still leaves us with the "my morality is
better than yours" problem because we don't know what the Real Morality is.
> Christianity, right or wrong in the details, at least provides you with • this
> much.
It does if you believe in it. If you don't, however, it's just another
human-invented morality and we end up with the same problem.
BTW, I'm enjoying this discussion: I haven't had to *think* this hard in a
while :-)
Kevin
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
| In response to "Kevin Wilson" <kwilson_tccs@compuserve.com> in message news:G5vpnz.Fr8@lugnet.com... Kevin, I'm sorry that I haven't been able to get to all of your posts. You are raising some good issues that I'd like to attempt to tackle. By the (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
| In response to "Kevin Wilson" <kwilson_tccs@compuserve.com> in message news:G5sE42.BEG@lugnet.com... Kevin, (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 19-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
|
|
|
|
