Subject:
|
Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:19:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
486 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Thomas writes in response to Kevin Wilson:
Steve, sorry to interrupt again, but there's a basic assumption of your
argument that I totally disagree with. I think your subsequent conclusions
are fascinating, but I'm not sure how stable their foundation is.
> Here's the argument [Steve] attempted to formulate last time:
>
> > > > > >
> (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.
I'm not sure about (1), and I think there are strong arguments against some
of its implications, but I'd really like to focus on (2).
As far as I know, teleology and biology have had nothing to do with one
another since Darwin. We can attribute functions to biological structures
and behaviours, but that does not mean that a characteristic has primarily
evolved to fulfil that function, and neither does it mean that a
characteristic can no longer fulfil any other (potentially novel) function.
For instance, a bird's forelimb may have first been a claw to climb trees,
that became a gliding membrane, that became a wing. In penguins it has now
become a flipper, which has a totally different function. I think that for
humans and chimps, at least, sex has also come to have a significance beyond
1+1=3.
I am convinced that the primary function of human sexuality is at least as
much to strengthen social relationships as it is to merely reproduce.
Unprotected heterosexual sex between fertile partners is still the easiest
way to make a baby, but more and more alternatives are becoming available,
and as others have pointed out, soon even the womb may no longer be necessary.
On the other hand Safe, Sane and Consensual (and I would argue Loving) sex
is one of the most healthy, enriching and binding experiences any human can
have, and until they come up with a teledildonic orgasmatron, I can't think
of anything that comes close. In a world with too many people and not enough
empathy I think that recreation is more important than procreation.
I'd like to hear your thoughts.
--DaveL
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
| In response to "Dave Low" <stinglessbee@hotSPA...Email.com> in message news:G5xHH6.6GH@lugnet.com... (...) Dave, Your participation is no interruption at all; it's a welcome addition to the discussion. I understand your objection and would say that (...) (24 years ago, 22-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: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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
