Metal Storm logo
Homosexuality



Posts: 660   [ 23 ignored ]   Visited by: 379 users

Original post

Posted by , 04.09.2007 - 00:51
There was a thread about this a long time ago, but it was locked due to the people posting there being incompetent. This is a very touchy subject, I know, but I want people to at least attempt to act in a civilized matter when discussing this. Flamewars are forbidden, and anyone attempting to start a flamewar will be doused in a chemical bath. With all of this out of the way, let's discuss our views on this subject.

Personally, I have no quarrels with someone being gay, or even bisexual for that matter. To each his own. They are not the monsters that religions make them out to be. They walk, talk, and think just like anyone else, and they have a great plethora of ideas to contribute to society. They are also just as intelligent as everyone else, and they have the same concerns and worries as any other person. As a real life example, my mother's hair dresser (who is also my hair dresser, which explains why my hair is so beautiful) is gay, but he is quite the upstanding fellow, and is quite intelligent. In short, I greatly respect the gay community and I wish to see them claim the same rights as everyone else.

Discussion starts... now.
07.01.2013 - 20:15
Yavanna

I don't really care about people sexual options... whatever it is you do with your partner in your private life it's not my concern

It only pisses me off when people start kissing and so on in public places, but it also aplies to hetero couples.
----
Carry me to the shoreline
Bury me in the sand
Walk me across the water
And maybe you'll understand
Loading...
07.01.2013 - 20:37
SSM
Massacred
"A condition of distorted sexuality that reflects the brokenness of our sinful world"? Of course not.
In my opinion homosexuals are normal people and the homosexuality is their normal/natural way of attraction, love, sexual activities, etc.
IMO neither they nor we are special in a sexual way.

(Wondering: ... is this a serious discussion? )
Loading...
07.01.2013 - 22:58
Fritillaria
Account deleted
Written by Yavanna on 07.01.2013 at 20:15


It only pisses me off when people start kissing and so on in public places, but it also aplies to hetero couples.


by people you mean homosexual couples ?
Loading...
07.01.2013 - 23:02
Apatheria

I'll interject and say I'm glad to see that the attitude about homosexuality around here seems to be generally positive; I've seen plenty of metal forums where such is not the case.

Yeah, not really contributing to the discussion or anything, I realize. Still, props to ya, Metal Storm.
----
Heavy metal is the law.
Loading...
07.01.2013 - 23:02
SilentScream
Blasphemer
Written by Guest on 07.01.2013 at 22:58

Written by Yavanna on 07.01.2013 at 20:15


It only pisses me off when people start kissing and so on in public places, but it also aplies to hetero couples.


by people you mean homosexual couples ?

Loading...
07.01.2013 - 23:13
Fritillaria
Account deleted
Written by SilentScream on 07.01.2013 at 23:02

Written by Guest on 07.01.2013 at 22:58

Written by Yavanna on 07.01.2013 at 20:15


It only pisses me off when people start kissing and so on in public places, but it also aplies to hetero couples.


by people you mean homosexual couples ?




oh my mistake I didn't notice the " hetero couples"
Loading...
07.01.2013 - 23:46
SilentScream
Blasphemer
Written by Guest on 07.01.2013 at 23:13

Written by SilentScream on 07.01.2013 at 23:02

Written by Guest on 07.01.2013 at 22:58

Written by Yavanna on 07.01.2013 at 20:15


It only pisses me off when people start kissing and so on in public places, but it also aplies to hetero couples.


by people you mean homosexual couples ?




oh my mistake I didn't notice the " hetero couples"

I was just kidding. I wouldn't take Tropic Thunder quotes too seriously if I was you ^^
Loading...
08.01.2013 - 04:14
Boxcar Willy
yr a kook
I work with a guy who's gay, and he's freakin' hilarious. I have zero problem with it.
----
14:22 - Marcel Hubregtse
I do your mum

DESTROY DRUM TRIGGERS
Loading...
11.01.2013 - 15:34
Yavanna

Written by Guest on 07.01.2013 at 23:13

Written by SilentScream on 07.01.2013 at 23:02

Written by Guest on 07.01.2013 at 22:58

Written by Yavanna on 07.01.2013 at 20:15


It only pisses me off when people start kissing and so on in public places, but it also aplies to hetero couples.


by people you mean homosexual couples ?




oh my mistake I didn't notice the " hetero couples"


Sorry, I think my post is a little bad-writen, but, yeah, couples (hetero or homo) kissing and hugging and so on in public is a thing that I don't like to watch.
I have some personal restrictions to physical contact, so, it kinda makes me sick
----
Carry me to the shoreline
Bury me in the sand
Walk me across the water
And maybe you'll understand
Loading...
13.01.2013 - 21:08
Thrashette

I take it most of this thread is heterosexuals giving their opinion about homosexuality... Well, my perspective is a different one. I live in a place where homosexuality is pretty accepted and homophobia is seen as ignorant. While there aren't many people who actually hate gays, I've encountered many who think less of them, think they're somehow weird or different, or still believe common misconceptions (like "lesbians all hate men" or "gays all have AIDS"). There's still people who use the term "gay" as an insult and gay children still get bullied for their sexuality. There's those who say things like "I don't care if someone's gay as long as I don't have to see them make out" while they have no problem making out with their opposite gender partner in public or the famous and most hated "I have no problem with gays but my kids/friends aren't allowed to be gay". It saddens me when I meet children who think it's "gross" or "wrong". It's often their parents' fault for raising them with such beliefs, but I think that problem could be solved if people just accepted it as a natural thing instead of a sensitive taboo subject that children must be sheltered from. And for those who actually are homosexual, it would give them less stress about questioning their sexuality. But I guess that doesn't happen because some people are still ignorant or want to cling to religious beliefs. There are very few homosexuals I've met who said coming out was easy, and many of them are still secretive about it. It's hardly ever as simple as everyone you care about just accepting it and things being the same. It's normally met with friends feeling awkward sometimes to the point of not wanting to hang out anymore, parents in denial thinking it's just a phase, and sometimes it gets as extreme as being kicked out of their parents' home for a bit. It's depressing how even in a first world country that's supposed to be accepting of homosexuality, this still happens. What frustrates me is when people think it's a choice. I've had some people tell me "you should stick to dating guys because they're less emotional, you can have kids one day, it's more normal, etc" as if I actually have a choice in the matter. Overall, being straight is easier. Why would anyone choose to make things more difficult for themselves? There's nothing to gain from that. I've had some homosexuals say that if they had a choice to be straight, they'd definitely do it. But yea, that's enough first world homosexual problems for now lol
Loading...
14.01.2013 - 02:56
Mattybu

^Read all of that long paragraph, you pretty much got it, I mean thinking it's a choice is a bit wacky, I figure most people have the basic education to know otherwise lol.

Although I would like to add religious beliefs aren't an excuse to be homophobic, but on the other hand, it's not right to assume someone is homophobic just because they are religious.
Loading...
14.01.2013 - 11:42
IronAngel

If someone tells you homosexuality is a choice, ask them when they chose to be heterosexual and how they chose who to get a crush on for the first time.
Loading...
14.01.2013 - 13:26
SSM
Massacred
Written by Thrashette on 13.01.2013 at 21:08

... There's those who say things like "I don't care if someone's gay as long as I don't have to see them make out" while they have no problem making out with their opposite gender partner in public or the famous and most hated "I have no problem with gays but my kids/friends aren't allowed to be gay". It saddens me when I meet children who think it's "gross" or "wrong". It's often their parents' fault for raising them with such beliefs, but I think that problem could be solved if people just accepted it as a natural thing instead of a sensitive taboo subject that children must be sheltered from.


I think some people do say things like "my kids/friends aren't allowed to be gay" because they think if they allow someone to be homosexual
or if they allow homosexuals to... I don't know, kiss in public, then there will be more homosexuals.
They think it's "contagious" somehow... which is pretty irrational 'cause homosexuality is not an option.
Loading...
14.01.2013 - 19:50
Candlemass
Defaeco
Written by SSM on 14.01.2013 at 13:26

I think some people do say things like "my kids/friends aren't allowed to be gay" because they think if they allow someone to be homosexual
or if they allow homosexuals to... I don't know, kiss in public, then there will be more homosexuals.
They think it's "contagious" somehow... which is pretty irrational 'cause homosexuality is not an option.


If it is a choice or not is debatable and anyways irrelevant ethically. Because you can't choose an action, it does not follow it is ethical. Maybe a psychopath, abused as a child, has an urge he can't resist to rape. It is still an undesirable and unethical action we ought to prevent.
I think the conversation should be in principle a part of ethics.

Just to share. This is a one of the best responses to some argument by people opposing Homosexuality.
Loading...
14.01.2013 - 21:30
IronAngel

Written by Candlemass on 14.01.2013 at 19:50

If it is a choice or not is debatable and anyways irrelevant ethically. Because you can't choose an action, it does not follow it is ethical. Maybe a psychopath, abused as a child, has an urge he can't resist to rape. It is still an undesirable and unethical action we ought to prevent.
I think the conversation should be in principle a part of ethics.


I wouldn't say that. It's pretty commonly agreed, I think reasonably, that you can only be a moral agent insofar as you have free will. It need not be as strict as Kant's formulation of "ought implies can", but it's hard to see how you could be guilty of something you had no active part in, or why you would deserve merit without any achievement of yours. If we describe the right and wrong of human behavior in terms of merit and guilt (and isn't that their meaning?) then it seems obvious that choice is, indeed, a prerequisite of moral or immoral action.

In fact, mental illness is a factor in judging guilt in court. Practice may vary between countries, but generally a defendant considered non compos mentis is not eligible for punishment but rather mental care. So our justice system seems to agree that being of sound mind and free to choose is a prerequisite for being judged. The abused rapist you describe might not be put in jail; he'd probably be sent into a mental institution.

But as you said, the inability to choose doesn't make an action ethical or right. It makes it amoral, not a matter of right and wrong at all. Homosexuality can be seen as undesirable and unfortunate (for whatever artificial reason), but not unethical - insofar as it isn't a choice. Then again, it's clearly a choice to practice your sexuality. That, I believe, is the typical antihomo Christian response - you are who you are, but we all must fight sin and avoid sinful actions like sodomy even if it goes our corrupt nature. But that's splitting hairs and its acceptability is thoroughly dependent on our accepting a certain kind of Christian dogma.


But philosophy aside, it's clear that the majority of people against homosexuality try to argue against it on grounds of choice. It's a really simple dichotomy: it was considered a disease in the past. Now that homosexuals are no longer considered sick, the obvious alternative seems to be that it's something they've chosen. This is a fallacy, and pointing it out is necessary. Heterosexuality isn't a disease either, yet it isn't something you can remember choosing. Going in-depth into what really constitutes a choice and whether freedom of will matters is somewhat beside the point, because it's not a sophisticated intellectual exercise that leads these peoples to adopt antihomosexual opinions.

Let it be acknowledged, though, that being "gay" is a choice. You choose to adopt a certain lifestyle, to practice your sexuality, to have certain relationships and identify yourself with a certain label in society. There's no indication that choosing the object of your sexual urges is a choice for most people, though. Some people have come to accept this and argue that you can be homo as long as you don't act homo. While consistent, there's very little reason to accept this position. Why should it be different from any other preference that's acceptable in society? Is there some relevant difference between acting out your homosexual urges and acting out your heterosexual urges? There needs to be additional grounds, but they're rarely spoken out loud because they're not the kind of arguments that would convince most people.

As for that video: it's excellent. I disagree on what he calls natural, because the only coherent definition of "natural" would be that which exist in the physical reality we can detect. Cars, factories and computers are as natural as rocks and beavers. But that aside, the appeal to nature as grounds of morality is nonsense and he's absolutely right. (I also notice he used the problematic term of "purpose" of organs, but that presupposes a plan behind creation; evolution probably only produces the appearance of purpose. But then again, it's good to accept the opposition's assumptions for the sake of the argument and still defeat them.)
Loading...
14.01.2013 - 22:29
SSM
Massacred
Written by Candlemass on 14.01.2013 at 19:50

Written by SSM on 14.01.2013 at 13:26

... which is pretty irrational 'cause homosexuality is not an option.


If it is a choice or not is debatable and anyways irrelevant ethically. Because you can't choose an action, it does not follow it is ethical. Maybe a psychopath, abused as a child, has an urge he can't resist to rape. It is still an undesirable and unethical action we ought to prevent.
I think the conversation should be in principle a part of ethics.

Just to share. This is a one of the best responses to some argument by people opposing Homosexuality.


So by "debatable" you mean you (anyone) can choose to be homosexual or heterosexual right away... or you're just not sure?
In my point of view "choice" means anyone who live a normal life can choose to be homo/heterosexual. Can you do that right now?
Or you were just attracted to girls (or guys if you're homosexual) from the beginning?

Anyway, the psychopath you've talked about is irrelevant in this argument, 'cause he will do things against people desires
and he will do harm to fulfill his own desires, but homosexuals don't force people to do things against their will
(Of course there are exceptions, you can find homosexual psychopaths as well as heterosexual ones).

And about the ethical part you've mentioned, I agree with IronAngel.
Loading...
15.01.2013 - 04:22
Thrashette

To keep a potentially long explanation short, I would say being homosexual isn't a choice but acting on it is a choice (or a matter of willpower, if you prefer). Imagine if you decided to live your life never acting on any feelings of romantic love or attraction. Or if you only formed relationships and had sex with people you weren't attracted to at all. I don't think it's fair that someone should have to go through that just because they're attracted to people of the same gender. In my situation (living in a first world country where homosexuality isn't a crime), I can say that just being openly gay is easier than forcing yourself to hide it. For the 100% straight people, especially those who freak out when gays hit on them, can you imagine what it would be like dating or having sex with someone of the same gender just to please society? That's how gay people feel when they try being straight. Nearly all the gays I've talked to have had experience with the opposite gender (due to not immediately knowing they're gay or being in denial), and they describe it as being "awkward", "not quite right", or "as if something was missing".

Written by Mattybu on 14.01.2013 at 02:56

Although I would like to add religious beliefs aren't an excuse to be homophobic, but on the other hand, it's not right to assume someone is homophobic just because they are religious.

Agreed. I've actually met a lot of people who are religious but not homophobic at all, or learnt to be less homphobic when someone they loved came out as gay. And on the other hand, I do know people who are atheist but still homophobic
Loading...
15.01.2013 - 18:47
Candlemass
Defaeco
Written by SSM on 14.01.2013 at 22:29

So by "debatable" you mean you (anyone) can choose to be homosexual or heterosexual right away... or you're just not sure?
In my point of view "choice" means anyone who live a normal life can choose to be homo/heterosexual. Can you do that right now?
Or you were just attracted to girls (or guys if you're homosexual) from the beginning?

Anyway, the psychopath you've talked about is irrelevant in this argument, 'cause he will do things against people desires
and he will do harm to fulfill his own desires, but homosexuals don't force people to do things against their will
(Of course there are exceptions, you can find homosexual psychopaths as well as heterosexual ones).

And about the ethical part you've mentioned, I agree with IronAngel.


No, I just don't think it is black or white. I think political motivation underplays psychological flexibility and is (a) irrelevant to the truth of the matter (b) even if right, still ethically irrelevant.
That's not the point of my analogy. (Free) choice or not - should not shape how we judge people - but rather how we ought to shape our society/act as individuals.
Loading...
15.01.2013 - 19:27
Candlemass
Defaeco
Written by IronAngel on 14.01.2013 at 21:30

As for that video: it's excellent. I disagree on what he calls natural, because the only coherent definition of "natural" would be that which exist in the physical reality we can detect. Cars, factories and computers are as natural as rocks and beavers. But that aside, the appeal to nature as grounds of morality is nonsense and he's absolutely right. (I also notice he used the problematic term of "purpose" of organs, but that presupposes a plan behind creation; evolution probably only produces the appearance of purpose. But then again, it's good to accept the opposition's assumptions for the sake of the argument and still defeat them.)


To clear this up for everyone reading- I didn't say that homosexuals have (free) choice, nor the opposite. My analogy pointed out that the evaluation of (free) choice should play little (or not at all) while judging actions.
First of all I would like to thank you for your thoughtful reply. I'm sorry my reply is going to be incomplete (including missing links to research I mention that I do already hold), I lack the time because of my studies. I promise to continue later. I sincerity apologize.

"seems obvious" and "hard to see" are notions that as a self-identified naturalist I try and distance myself from while forming beliefs (intuitive cognitive style actually correlates with religious types). Here are results not based on intuition notions.
In the light of these results, I beg to differ. ~50% of philosophers today are self-identified 'naturalists' and even a bigger percentage physicalism (~55%). i recon Philosophy has gone a long way from since the so called self-evident connection between 'free-will' and 'moral responsibility' (two ambiguous terms).
If their is an agreement it is the rejection of libertarian free will- only ~14% hold this view. I reject the notion of (libertarian and common-senseical) free will as most philosophers do.
It is not mental illness pre-se that should count (as you implied), but actions that are differ from the usual (moral) character of the accused. I'll elaborate on this.

I actually see a problems with the opposite view. I'll start with the merits of my view. I suggest we let go of some kind of 'ultimate moral responsibility' and base responsibility on pragmatic reasons and desires.
Punitive actions (that bring deterrence) do have casual connection to will, they actually change the situation. Same goes for rehabilitation.
So the mentality ill (people with low IQs, small children, etc) are not punished because you cannot really deter them. Is their any reason under the free will view to not do so except an appeal to implicit and unscrutinized intuitions?

I read a book along time ago on love (first serious girl friend). A cognitive science (and some philosophy) book by an Israeli researcher. The way we form feelings and attitudes to a certain degree is a matter of choice if you have enough self-knowledge. Some situations will make you fall in love. Love, from a scientific point of view, involves the ability to choose it according to antecedent choices. I don't know if this goes for homosexuality, but I feel the need for proper research since politics is relevant here.
Any how, If homosexuality is a choice or not does in principle concern me very little.

"sophisticated intellectual exercise" has a low to moderate correlation with epistemic rationality (i.e. belief formation). You can be very smart, yet form a belief from the wrong reasons and keep holding this belief for wring reasons.

"Why should it be different from any other preference that's acceptable in society? " - I agree.

I tend to disagree on that definition of "natural". It changes, and those changes poss a challenge for the metaphysical naturalists. That is a different issue though, and I don't think it holds much relevance to the points his making.
Loading...
15.01.2013 - 21:25
IronAngel

Written by Candlemass on 15.01.2013 at 19:27

"seems obvious" and "hard to see" are notions that as a self-identified naturalist I try and distance myself from while forming beliefs (intuitive cognitive style actually correlates with religious types). Here are results not based on intuition notions.
In the light of these results, I beg to differ. ~50% of philosophers today are self-identified 'naturalists' and even a bigger percentage physicalism (~55%). i recon Philosophy has gone a long way from since the so called self-evident connection between 'free-will' and 'moral responsibility' (two ambiguous terms).
If their is an agreement it is the rejection of libertarian free will- only ~14% hold this view. I reject the notion of (libertarian and common-senseical) free will as most philosophers do.


I'm not sure what you mean by this. What do those statistics imply? Surely you're not saying those naturalists and physicalists deny the relevance of genuine moral agency (some kind of freedom) in evaluations of right and wrong? It might be that most of them are unsure how to translate their metaphysical views into ethics, and some of them probably deny the meaningfulness of moral language in the first place. But I find it highly unlikely many would say you should be punished or you should be rewarded (as a matter of right and wrong, not just pragmatic crowd control) for something you had no active part in. And even if they did say that in a survey, it would be no indication of the strength of their argument.

Even in the rigorous and highly theoretical fields like epistemology and philosophy of language, common philosophical argumentation uses necessarily uncertain modes of speech like that. At least in the text-books, monographs and articles I've read, they usually take a set of propositions that seem to be in conflict, and then evaluate the most reasonable solution. In essence, most of philosophy is a series of such groups of arguments, adjustments to them, and counter-examples. And because you can basically choose to dismiss or adjust any one assumption and there's no epistemic reason to choose one over the other (as per the Duhem-Quine thesis), philosophers seem very aware that the solutions we accept are fairly arbitrary and far from certain. There doesn't seem to be a universal rule of rationality that you could apply and solve problems with. Rather, philosophy is just a more refined game of convincing. Something may be quite hard to see, and something may seem obvious, but you can persuade me otherwise with a convincing argument. Philosophical language has come a long way from the strict certitudes of Kant and co. but rather into a more cautious direction, I feel.

Would you say someone is guilty of murder if government agents tapped into his nervous system and made him assassinate someone? Would you say someone is a good person and doing the right thing if, unknowingly and by accident, he stepped on a cigarette and stopped a fire that would have killed dozens? You could say that, or at least there could be more believable examples where pragmatic concerns and a chain of materialistic causation determined right and wrong. But you'd have to provide some convincing arguments in favor of that view. It still seems that no matter how much of the world you explain in physicalistic terms, morality is still something different. Old as they may be, Hume's "no ought from is" and Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy remain to be answered. The way people understand moral terms, the very meaning of those words in our language, demands that it be something separate from facts of nature.

Quote:

"sophisticated intellectual exercise" has a low to moderate correlation with epistemic rationality (i.e. belief formation). You can be very smart, yet form a belief from the wrong reasons and keep holding this belief for wring reasons.


Yes, but my point is that you're speaking beside the point (though it's interesting). You cast doubt on whether homosexuality is a choice, and then you suggest that even if it isn't a choice, it can still be wrong. This seems to comment on the public debate and private attitudes about homosexuality, and even legitimate certain antihomo views. But in fact (as I know you understand) you're not talking in those terms at all. When people (in general) talk about homosexuality being a choice or not, they assume it has moral relevance. There is the assumption it's a chosen lifestyle and preference (since it can't be dismissed as a disease anymore), and they should be reprimanded because they've chosen something that's wrong. Alternately, there's the more sophisticated Christian view, on which homosexuality is a sin like any other, and homosexuals should refrain from doing it like other should refrain from pride or gluttony. When people talk about right and wrong, insofar as they think the terms have any meaning at all, they assume they have the freedom to choose one or the other (even if they can't always achieve what they set their mind to) - or they assume a view of Christian predestination. Either way, the alternative you've crafted (whatever it is; I'm a little unsure) is not on the table. Your "sophisticated intellectual exercise" as I called it, or your practice of epistemic rationality, doesn't really touch the public debate and attitudes about homosexuality. Nobody is arguing for or against your position (except me in this instance) and it's not a position people have even thought about, so that's why I said it was beside the point. The political and ethical controversy is over different assumptions and disagreements entirely.

I do think there are grounds on which legitimating homosexuality in society could be reasonably opposed. The possibility is not quite the one you've sketched. But one thing is for sure: the general public opinion against gay marriage, adoption etc. is not based on those reasonable grounds, and therefore defending the hypothetical possibility of a good argument is misleading (and politically irresponsible, if we were to care about that here).
Loading...
15.01.2013 - 22:07
Candlemass
Defaeco
"What do those statistics imply?" nothing in itself. Of course not. It was a reply to the words "commonly agreed".
Naturalists and especially physicalits tend to deny libertarian free will (regardless of these metaphysical views, most philosophers in general deny this notion) and see people as grounded fully in this world, as causal entities. Surely, surely you can spare me the William lane Craig style rhetoric like "crowd control". Adding the words "only" before statements like (this is only an example) "we are only atoms" bares not on the truth of the matter. I prefer fair language.

Yes, you could say a way to find reflective equilibrium.
I find that view cynical. No universal laws of thinking maybe, but we are trying to get closer to it (or at least something more useful).

That's not my view of agency. It has nothing to do with rag-doll randomness. People, being a part of this world, are still people and still have their 'mindware' working.
It is not that they do not make choices or evaluate, they do not do so freely as an agent or soul (same thing). On my view the closest you get to free will is self-knowledge and self-regulation (i.e. rationality).
Again, I differ on your definition of "nature" and "physicalism" and the way you present them. I don't even think they are metaphysical notions mostly, but epistemic ('science is our best guide to ontology').
Moral psychology, rationality and decision theory are good enough to draw normative facts as a part of a general theory as physics is good enough to ground notions like "forces" or "fields" without special justification.

I cast doubt on the notion that homosexuality is not a choice whatsoever. And even if it is fully a (free) choice, that would be irrelevant. I'm putting my view on the table regardless of public notions. I would be happy if you could share your reasons with me. That would probably make this conversation more focused.

Sorry must study.
Loading...
15.01.2013 - 22:46
IronAngel

Written by Candlemass on 15.01.2013 at 22:07

That's not my view of agency. It has nothing to do with rag-doll randomness. People, being a part of this world, are still people and still have their 'mindware' working.
It is not that they do not make choices or evaluate, they do not do so freely as an agent or soul (same thing). On my view the closest you get to free will is self-knowledge and self-regulation (i.e. rationality).


Whatever your view of agency, there is some. Or can you give an example of morality without agency? I'm not sure what libertarian freedom or the freedom of an autonomous soul means, exactly, but I don't see it as a prerequisite at all. You just said people make choices, but a choice is by definition something you choose; something you intend; an act of will; free. You're positing a straw man view of freedom, and you have yet to answer my question: would you say I did the right thing and should be rewarded for something I did not intend and choose to do? And conversely for guilt and punishment. That my examples are rag-doll randomness is beside the point: you must be able to generalize the principle if you have one, and explain why it applies in some cases (psychopaths) and not in others (accidents, alien mind-control). If you can't reconcile your view with what the words "right" and "wrong" actually mean in the proper use of competent speakers, then you're not actually talking about the things you claim to be talking about. The concept of choice implies freedom, and the concept of morality implies choice. This is self-evident, and though not irrefutable, you haven't actually refuted it with any convincing example and systematic alternative.

Morality is a matter of meaning. It shapes our experience of the world. You could say it's something formal. By definition, meaning cannot be in the world. The world is not given. Meaning also presupposes intention (on some level; not sure how to specifically formulate this). If the bell's ringing twelve times means it's noon, that presupposes a purpose and intention. Purpose and intention must be purpose designated by someone, someone's intention. Purpose and intention are teleological. Teleology is the polar opposite of causality. So consequently, a causal world cannot have meaning - and given that morality is a type of meaning, no morality. This is not a formal argument and I'm sure you could poke holes at individual steps, but it shows why I think the notion of a physicalist morality is absurd. Morality is not a part of the world, it's part of the meanings we give to the world we experience.

Not sure about the rest of your post. Fair language must be open-ended, because obviously we can't be specific enough to cover every case worth considering. There is, logically, intuitively, linguistically, a huge difference in saying "we are atoms" or "we are only atoms", so dunno what point you're making there.

You haven't actually given any good reason to suspect homosexuality might be a choice, and no convincing argument why we should consider that irrelevant. It's only irrelevant if we agree not to have it factor in our evaluation, after all. I'm also not entirely sure how you can entertain the possibility of a choice and simultaneously deny the concept of freedom; can you sketch ethics that was not connected with choice and agency, or suggest how one might choose homosexuality without any freedom in the matter?
Loading...
16.01.2013 - 19:12
Candlemass
Defaeco
Written by IronAngel on 15.01.2013 at 22:46

Whatever your view of agency, there is some. Or can you give an example of morality without agency? I'm not sure what libertarian freedom or the freedom of an autonomous soul means, exactly, but I don't see it as a prerequisite at all. You just said people make choices, but a choice is by definition something you choose; something you intend; an act of will; free.


I beg to differ.
(A) That's a conflation of two different concepts. By referring to "Choice" I mean an action of selection. Need this selection be free? No. That's the issue on the table which we may speak of, without begging the question. (B) "By definition" arguments, are not arguments. That goes also to "By definition, meaning cannot be in the world". By definition religion is mistaken. And for good reasons.

"a straw man view of freedom"? that is an unfair accusation. I mentioned already at the beginning if this conversation that "free will" is an ambiguous term, and that I'm speaking of libertarian free will, explicitly.

You didn't ask mt a question, you posed loaded questions which assume a certain view of agency which I reject.
"would you say I did the right thing and should be rewarded for something I did not intend and choose to do?"
No, and I don't understand the relevance of this question to anything I said.

"The concept of choice implies freedom, and the concept of morality implies choice. This is self-evident..."
Not to me, and it seems not to most philosophers which reject libertarian free will. Repeating this phrase will not add to the conversation.
I asked you a question at the first reply. Is their any reason under the free will view to not do so [punish] except an appeal to implicit and unscrutinized intuitions?

Kant thought we must use teleological language but it has no ontological implications. We need not psychologically project onto nature, even tho we find it hard avoiding. They also do not promise any epistemic merit. Why cannot a causal world have meaning?
Me willing that or believing that could cause me intending that action. Mental states causing other mental states which are caused by other states in world - like being drunk, which affects you chemically and then effects your cognition. We have evolved, as many other beings, the ability to evaluate. Me, being apart of this world, is no different then a plant or star being a part of this casual world. In the words of Gray Edwards "Psychology is a physical science".

I said "(free) choice" not simply choice. I reject the relevance of the (libertarian) freedom as relevant. I think this point should be clear by now.
I would like to hear your reasons against the practice of homosexuality if you would like this conversation to be more focused.
Loading...
16.01.2013 - 20:23
IronAngel

I'm at a loss, to be honest. You've posited such an alien concept of "libertarian freedom" that I don't see its relevance. The question was whether the fact that an action is or isn't a choice should have any moral relevance. The answer is yes, and there's no reason to doubt this that you've given. Where does this supposed libertarian freedom come into the picture?

And yes, selection must be free because freedom is defined as the ability to choose and self-determine your actions (even if you're under the influence of various causal chains). If you have another definition of freedom, then it's one that I'm simply not discussing because I can't imagine it. What is choice without freedom or freedom without choice? It's not comprehensible. For there to be a choice, it's required that you could have chosen differently. That's what the word means.

Therefore, if we consider homosexuality undesireable (which neither of us do, I think), it seems extremely relevant whether those people choose to do wrong or whether it's a psycho-physiological condition they have no control over. In criminal justice, there's obviously this gray area: is a psychopath responsible for his crimes or not? And if we assume that we're wholly materially deterministic beings, in what sense can anyone be responsible for anything? But in fields of morality and criminal justice, we assume there is some meaningful sense in which we can speak of choice and responsibility, and they are relevant.

I don't have any reasons against the practice of homosexuality. I am in favor of abolishing all restrictions from legislation that reference gender or sexuality, and I have fairly radical sympathies towards gender studies (primarily a church historian). Not sure if you thought I'm a Christian or against homosexuality or something.
Loading...
16.01.2013 - 21:42
Candlemass
Defaeco
Libertarian free will "alien concept"? It's a basic concept in metaphysics, to which every philosophy student is introduced to through the most basic textbooks.
I repeat again - not just choice, but free choice. I denoted that. Selection need not be free.
Language is a tool for communication (it's a shame you never read that link). A long as you understand what I'm referring to, there is no need to argue about definitions. For all I care, call my my concept of choice "COF".
"it's required that you could have chosen differently." - I beg to differ. Repeating that (by appeal to "I can't imagine" or gut feeling) for the fourth time doesn't add to our conversation.
Loading...
16.01.2013 - 21:49
IronAngel

So far, you haven't given a single positive argument in support of anything. You evade my point and criticize my choice of words. You repeating that there's a difference between choice and "free" choice (something which you only introduced as the debate went on) doesn't add to our conversation either.

Can you give me a definition of choice that doesn't appeal to freedom but neither to choice itself? What exactly is the choice you're talking about, how does it work and what are its prerequisites? And why is this new concept of choice, too, irrelevant ethically?

And no, libertarian is a political term and no philosophical text-book I've read in my years of study has ever mentioned the concept. And either way a pure free will detached from the physical world is something nobody in this conversation defended and not something required for there to be a connection between morality and choice, so you're not arguing against anyone.

Let's say I'm the sum of my experiences, and my brain is part of the causal chain like any other lump of matter. Do you agree that there is still some meaningful sense in which I can choose to pull a trigger and kill someone, or not pull the trigger? Forget freedom; can we say I choose? And if we can, why would it be irrelevant to ethics?

Quote:
If it is a choice or not is debatable and anyways irrelevant ethically. Because you can't choose an action, it does not follow it is ethical. Maybe a psychopath, abused as a child, has an urge he can't resist to rape. It is still an undesirable and unethical action we ought to prevent.
I think the conversation should be in principle a part of ethics.


This is what you need to defend. Choice (not even free choice), by your words, is irrelevant ethically. You think we should talk about this in terms of ethics without reference to choice (which you later amend to "free choice", which is all but a cosmetic adjustment). So how should we approach this, ethically? What, exactly, is the approach you would like to take at the homosexuality debate?
Loading...
16.01.2013 - 22:51
IronAngel

By the way: I was looking at the survey you quoted. Interestingly, even a smaller percentage thought that there was no free will than that there was libertarian free will. By a huge margin, compatibilism was the most popular choice. And as the very first paragraph of the SEP article on compatibilism mentions, compatibilism is typically taken to allow for the freedom required of moral responsibility. So it seems I was right after all in that it is commonly agreed moral responsibility requires some freedom of choice. It's even agreed by the majority of philosophers to be the case, and we need not ask what the common man thinks. So instead of focusing on my rhetoric and appealing to "most philosophers" (who in fact don't agree with you, even if it mattered), let's get down to business.
Loading...
17.01.2013 - 03:53
BitterCOld
The Ancient One
While this is serious discussions, and i approve of talk better than "meme" or "fag! :banger;", if we're going to get into dueling dissertations, take it to pms.
----
get the fuck off my lawn.

Beer Bug Virus Spotify Playlist crafted by Nikarg and I. Feel free to tune in and add some pertinent metal tunes!
Loading...
17.01.2013 - 18:16
Candlemass
Defaeco
Written by IronAngel on 16.01.2013 at 21:49

By the way: I was looking at the survey you quoted. Interestingly, even a smaller percentage thought that there was no free will than that there was libertarian free will. By a huge margin, compatibilism was the most popular choice. And as the very first paragraph of the SEP article on compatibilism mentions, compatibilism is typically taken to allow for the freedom required of moral responsibility. So it seems I was right after all in that it is commonly agreed moral responsibility requires some freedom of choice. It's even agreed by the majority of philosophers to be the case, and we need not ask what the common man thinks. So instead of focusing on my rhetoric and appealing to "most philosophers" (who in fact don't agree with you, even if it mattered), let's get down to business.


Words can have more then one meaning, yes? I'm aware of the word's meaning in two of those contexts (Political philosophy: a moral stance. Metaphysics: Indeterministic Free will).
This conversation is going no where until you familiarize yourself with these basic concepts.
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_%28metaphysics%29
(2) http://www.theopedia.com/Libertarian_free_will
(3) http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/019515987X.001.0001/acprof-9780195159875
(4) Somewhat ironic the term appears in the (biggest) survey as an answer in a question formulated "Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?" and you still don't recognize it at this point at the conversation (even after looking again at the survey question) and put it under "politics".

I started this conversion (this is the second maybe I'm denoting this point) that "free (will)" is an ambiguous term. I also made it clear I'm referring to Libertarian free will by using the words "free will" from that point onwards. You did not clear up your terms even tho I pointed out that "free (will)" is an ambiguous term and started to use it to refer to Libertarian free will.

It seems memory runs short: "that you can only be a moral agent insofar as you have free will."
No "some" was added as you later did. A reply after I say " I reject the notion of (libertarian and common-senseical) free will".
And we are still debating semantics at this point at the conversation? let's move on to something interesting.

I defined the term (choice) for you by offering a synonym - the act of selection. Selection need not be free (If you do not understand what I mean by the term, refer to a paragraph above).
I detailed how it works to some degree, asking you on that account (punishment) how does your concept deal with the situation with no direct reply.
So here I go again:
"I suggest we let go of some kind of 'ultimate moral responsibility' and base responsibility on pragmatic reasons and desires.
Punitive actions (that bring deterrence) do have casual connection to will, they actually change the situation. Same goes for rehabilitation.
So the mentality ill (people with low IQs, small children, etc) are not punished because you cannot really deter them. Is their any reason under the free will view to not do so except an appeal to implicit and unscrutinized intuitions?"

"Free will" refers to basic libertarian free will for now on, unless you would like to offer another concept of Free will or flesh it out.
Loading...
17.01.2013 - 18:23
Marcel Hubregtse
Grumpy Old Fuck
Written by Candlemass on 17.01.2013 at 18:16

Written by IronAngel on 16.01.2013 at 21:49

By the way: I was looking at the survey you quoted. Interestingly, even a smaller percentage thought that there was no free will than that there was libertarian free will. By a huge margin, compatibilism was the most popular choice. And as the very first paragraph of the SEP article on compatibilism mentions, compatibilism is typically taken to allow for the freedom required of moral responsibility. So it seems I was right after all in that it is commonly agreed moral responsibility requires some freedom of choice. It's even agreed by the majority of philosophers to be the case, and we need not ask what the common man thinks. So instead of focusing on my rhetoric and appealing to "most philosophers" (who in fact don't agree with you, even if it mattered), let's get down to business.


Words can have more then one meaning, yes? I'm aware of the word's meaning in two of those contexts (Political philosophy: a moral stance. Metaphysics: Indeterministic Free will).
This conversation is going no where until you familiarize yourself with these basic concepts.
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_%28metaphysics%29
(2) http://www.theopedia.com/Libertarian_free_will
(3) http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/019515987X.001.0001/acprof-9780195159875
(4) Somewhat ironic the term appears in the (biggest) survey as an answer in a question formulated "Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?" and you still don't recognize it at this point at the conversation (even after looking again at the survey question) and put it under "politics".

I started this conversion (this is the second maybe I'm denoting this point) that "free (will)" is an ambiguous term. I also made it clear I'm referring to Libertarian free will by using the words "free will" from that point onwards. You did not clear up your terms even tho I pointed out that "free (will)" is an ambiguous term and started to use it to refer to Libertarian free will.

It seems memory runs short: "that you can only be a moral agent insofar as you have free will."
No "some" was added as you later did. A reply after I say " I reject the notion of (libertarian and common-senseical) free will".
And we are still debating semantics at this point at the conversation? let's move on to something interesting.

I defined the term (choice) for you by offering a synonym - the act of selection. Selection need not be free (If you do not understand what I mean by the term, refer to a paragraph above).
I detailed how it works to some degree, asking you on that account (punishment) how does your concept deal with the situation with no direct reply.
So here I go again:
"I suggest we let go of some kind of 'ultimate moral responsibility' and base responsibility on pragmatic reasons and desires.
Punitive actions (that bring deterrence) do have casual connection to will, they actually change the situation. Same goes for rehabilitation.
So the mentality ill (people with low IQs, small children, etc) are not punished because you cannot really deter them. Is their any reason under the free will view to not do so except an appeal to implicit and unscrutinized intuitions?"

"Free will" refers to basic libertarian free will for now on, unless you would like to offer another concept of Free will or flesh it out.


please back on topic about homosexuality and take heed of BitterCOld's post above your last one
----
Member of the true crusade against European Flower Metal

Yesterday is dead and gone, tomorrow is out of sight
Dawn Crosby (r.i.p.)
05.04.1963 - 15.12.1996

Loading...