Subject:
|
Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 02:04:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
429 times
|
| |
|
|
In response to "Dave Low" <stinglessbee@hotSPAMFREEmail.com> in message
news:G5xHH6.6GH@lugnet.com...
> 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.
>
> ...
>
> I'm not sure about (1) [an archetypical human nature],
> and I think there are strong arguments against some
> of its implications, but I'd really like to focus on (2)
> [the procreative teleology of sex].
Dave,
Your participation is no interruption at all; it's a welcome addition to the
discussion.
I understand your objection and would say that if we don't agree on (1) from
the beginning (which is where all threads seem to be heading thus far,
anyway), it's going to be awfully hard to secure (2) in a reasonable
fashion. I don't pretend to be able to sustain it, in that case. So to
date, I've been arguing on two fronts for (1) in this fashion: First, I
don't think that an objective morality can be sustained without (1) - the
folks here seem to have some understanding of such a morality, even if they
lack an explanation for it, so that may be a fruitful discussion. Second, I
gave a couple brief examples of what I would consider evidence of a
purposeful human nature: I argued that we intuitively recognize a purpose to
the human mind, and I attempted to present what I think are counterintuitive
cases in our reactions to manipulating the biology of human beings. Some
may find these more or less intuitive than others, but I thought they were
somewhat compelling.
You went on to say:
> 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.
A few things come to mind here, but let me just mention just one: I
responded to another post by noting that in my view the soul informs and
sets parameters to the biology of the individual far more than changes in
one's DNA (neo-Darwinism's medium for change). (DNA, in my view, may be
more like bricks and mortar - or a recipe for such - than an architects
drawing.) This would guarantee the preservation of that archetypical human
nature, which wouldn't be subject to mutation and natural selection. What
do you do with the soul? What role does it play in your view?
> 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.
If you reread my posts, you're coming close to what I was saying: the
primary purpose is unity between man and wife via their participation as
"one flesh" in the procreative act. If the body is an integral aspect of
the person, this is as intimate as two persons can get (assuming the other
aspects of the participants are already in harmony), which would go
dramatically toward "strengthen[ing] social relationships" - in this case,
the relationship between spouses - in a way that is unattainable by other
means.
This is also the bridge connecting parents to their children - another
aspect of "social relationships". Why do parents raise their children
rather than the state? Or, why could the state not take one couple's
children and assign them to another couple, if the latter was better
educated, wealthier, etc.? I haven't really explored this line of argument,
but I'm wondering if the reproductive connection between parents and
children doesn't speak to the a priori moral connection between them. At
least one philosopher has suggested that our culture, if homosexual
"marriage" (note that such isn't possible *by definition* in my view, but
this point is never brought up in popular culture) was accepted as
equivalent to heterosexual marriage, could begin to see heterosexual couples
as no more worthy of their children than any other couple (or perhaps,
coalition of persons - say, Mrs. Clinton's "village"). Denial of the
procreative aspects linking husband to wife to children (underlying the
uniqueness of heterosexual marriage) might lead to the idea that it's odd
and unfair for heterosexuals to have children, and homosexual couples (or
other arrangements) not to have them, not unlike feminists who argue that it
is unfair that women have to bear children, but not men, and therefore
certain things follow from that in our society.
I'm not saying that I could defend this view (at this point, anyway), nor am
I saying that homosexuals are evil people and would want to take away our
children - I don't believe that, either. But if there is some merit to the
_logic_ of the argument, it could have an effect on how people think over
the long term (say, generations), until the a priori moral connection
between parents and children is almost entirely gone. I'd be interested in
feedback and counterarguments on this point.
> 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.
Absolutely foreseeable (and though not necessarily good in my view, I can
see appropriate uses for such things), but these changes would not affect
the morality of sexual behaviors with an archetypical human nature in place.
I can imagine that in some cases you might get to a point in which almost
anything you do is immoral, though, if the intervention is
extreme/destructive enough.
But I think you're going about the inquiry in exactly the right way,
asking - What is a human being? What mechanism would define an archetypical
human nature? Our understanding of ethics must be rooted in metaphysics,
after all, and that's why I've asked some of the questions in response to
your arguments.
> 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.
In my understanding, sexual intimacy is far too serious to be considered a
recreational activity, but I'm not sure exactly how far you would take that
term.
> I'd like to hear your thoughts.
>
> --DaveL
Thanks, Dave. Sorry I haven't been able to respond to you prior to this
post; too much going on and too much ground left to cover. ;-)
Take care,
Steve
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
| In my last post, news:G5xxB1.3tv@lugnet.com..., I wrote the following: (...) This is also the bridge connecting parents to their children - another aspect of "social relationships". Why do parents raise their children rather than the state? Or, why (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
| 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
