Subject:
|
Re: Family values?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 4 Jan 2001 22:33:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
266 times
|
| |
|
|
"Steve Thomas" <steve_thomas_2000_no_spam_please@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:G6nK8M.5ny@lugnet.com...
>
> As to the contingent effects, I do think one should be held accountable • for
> damages (morally, if not legally) to other persons based on what we know
> (informed consent, right?) of the consequences of sex. We do this already
> with drunk drivers; we take their recklessness into account in considering
> the harm they bring about. Or, if I bat a ball through a window - even by
> mistake - I take responsibility for it. Why not with decisions regarding
> sexuality? That being said, I think the case may well be stronger if the
> initial action is wrong in itself. For example, if a man A tries to kill
> man B with a knife but accidentally ends up killing B's 3 year-old • daughter
> (which was unintended). That seems different to me than if A was cutting
> bread at B's house for dinner, and the knife slipped, and athe child was
> killed.
I'll add that if the consequence and the initial action are teleologically
related (as are sex and procreation), then the case against the initial
action should be even stronger than the knife illustration I gave above, in
which the relationship between the knife and the child's death is
accidental, rather than necessary.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) Bill, I agree with you that sex outside of marriage is immoral, but I want to make a distinction as to its primary wrongfulness. It is not - as I understand the problem - primarily wrong because of any contingent circumstances that may or may (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
