dk

To say one thing differs from another by nothing is nonsense, and to say one thing is identical to itself is meaningless. In no concievable world can two different people possibly be identical in every way. This is what mnkbdky tries to avoid in the thread "Metaphysical Moral Realism".

dk

Christians are a very diverse people, and even within the most orthodox branches of Christianity divide on the issue of homosexuality. Lets review a little history…
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association (APA) voted to remove homosexuality from the DMS list. This was a political response not a scientific finding and political responses formulate dogma. Properly understood, the secular post WWII US government to Win the Peace ordained the social sciences with a priestly power to divine a better future through social engineering. Since then the social sciences has been out on a hiatus trying to redefine a new social order (morality) based upon a hypothetical unisex individual i.e. a MIA individual concieved to rationalize a cultural war to win the peace. The effect has given rise to a gender gap that polarizes, paralyzes and isolates academia within walls built with political capital, and that spells d-o-g-m-a. We who argue about this issue tend to ride our convictions rough shod over any pretense of scientific impartiality.

The AntiChris

Alonzo Fyfe
It's only different if you insist that because moral opinions have an 'objective' component to them then they're not subjective opinions.

I'd argue that our subjective values are what underpin our moral opinions and it would seem to be quite legitimate to say assessment of "good and evil" is therefore subjective.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. It seems to me that both elements are necessary in order to form a moral opinion. It makes no sense to ask which is more important. It's rather like asking which is the more important ingredient of water - hydrogen or oxygen?
Of course not but this does presuppose that there is a "right" answer.
You surely can't be saying that a moral opinion can be formed in the absence of "our values"?
I think this gets to the crux of the problem. Even accepting your interpretation of what it is "moral questions ask", any assessment of moral worth must entail a subjective value judgement of the weight to accord the myriad desires that exist which are "other than our own". I really can't see how you can avoid, what seems to me, this inescapable fact other than by positing that, at some fundamental level, we all share precisely the same universal values.

I hope this makes sense. I'm genuinely trying to understand how you justify your view that there can be an objectively "right" answer to moral issues.

Chris

babdon

well, here's my two cents on this, homosexuality from an objective viewpoint is not unethical. By itself it doesn't hurt anyone.

I have a simplistic view of morality and ethics. They are supposed to be for the betterment (is that a word ) of the humanity. They are supposed to let us get along better. Make us live 'good' lives.

homosexuality is what it is and thats just all.

I will let it be known that i personally don't agree with it, just thesame way i might not agree with muslims supposably not being able to eat pork or smoking cigarettes. Why? cuz it simply just doesn't add up to me. Doesn't make it right or wrong, as one poster said, its neutral. It is then up to the individual to make up his own conclusions and what not based on his beliefs and experience.

and on a side note, IMO, happiness is not a physical thing. Its a state of mind if you will. if it were as simple as just chemicals and what not, then damn, everyone would be happy.
"oh look, my mother just got killed in a car accident. Oh, better take some happy pills and i'll be happy again."
nah, it doesn't work like that. There's way more to being really happy than just the actual chemical reactions.

Tani

it's not for me, but i'm just going to comment on this.

this seems to be a qualia vs consciousness problem.

actually, let it be that one is conscious and the other unconscious, do you think one would feel happiness while the other doesn't? and perhaps you might say if one is conscious and the other unconscious, the two aren't really the same. certainly true, except wouldn't we be already assuming that qualia equals consciousness instead of proving such assertion, ie begging the question?

the problem with assuming the two being identical and therefore should be the same serves only to tell what you believe in thought, not what happens in fact.

in terms of consciousness, i have no way to know if you are really conscious or not other than from my observation of your behaviour. the relationship between your mood and your behaviour is a contigent one rather than a necessary one, as far as i can tell, because, first of all, i can't repeat conditions for repeat testing reliably, but most of all, i don't have direct access to the data. i don't actually sense your consciousness - i can, may be, see your qualia in the subatomic level, but i can't see (or observe) your happiness unless you expresses it to me. there is no reason to assign a quilia any conscious quality unless i can observe it somehow, but alas, there is no way to observe it. to simlpy assign identity to a qualia is no different than assigning the word "happiness" to that conscious feeling. it's like you telling me you are happy everytime you feel happy. that particular construction of qualia merely becomes another word for happy just like the word joy, it still doesn't bridge the gap - i still don't know what exactly you're feeling.

and so, this boils the issue down to just how would each of the two test subject know if their counter part is happy or unhappy? each sure knows if s/he is happy or not, but other than the test subject himself/herself, no one else can sense it. it is something entirely private to the subject's own consciousness - we can't say if they are really feeling the same or not, because there is no way to observe it.

and this is where the whole enquiry got stuck. there is no way to get data to compare, and therefore, no way to conclude. it might be all physical after all, but without being able to at least establish some form of necessary causal relationship, we can't really be serious in saying anything regarding that other than in the hypotheticals.

trekbette

As early as the 1960s, left handed children were "forced" or "re-educated" to change their dominate hand to the right. The idea for years was that lefthandedness was associated with witchcraft and/or devil worship. Now, that idea is ludicrous.

I hope that homosexuality will go the same way. In time, the idea that homosexuality is "wrong" or "immoral" will become outdated.

Homosexuality is a natural occurance. There have been studies in which the brain stem of gay men were compared to those of straight men and straight women. The results were that gay men's brain stems more closely resembled that of straight women than straight men.

Plus, let's think about it for a minute. If someone could "choose" to be gay, would they knowing about all the rampant homophobia, possible estrangement from friends and family, job and housing discrimination as well as the "state" telling them who they can or cannot marry.

Just like it would be easier for we atheists to be theists--but we can't--it would be easier for gay people to be straight--but they can't. Not won't but can't.

keyser_soze

Since no one else is assisting you in hijaaking the thread, I'll bite.

What over-riding and timeless principle was not boiling a baby sheep in it's mother's milk addressing? Before Moses that is? And what has it to do with homosexuality as per the thread?

Alonzo Fyfe

Actually, Trekbette, both of the arguments you give for the acceptance of homosexuality actually rest on the assumption that it is wrong.


Does it matter what the brain stem of gay men look like compared to that of straight men?

What if this difference had never been found? What if we find a difference in the brain stem structure in those who become serial killers compared to that of normal people?

In fact, it is not unreasonable to expect that there is a physiological difference within all categories of behavior. Serial killers almost certainly have some difference in the way their brain functions, compared to other people. There is no other rational explanation behind the fact that they behave differently. However, discovering this difference is going to have absolutely no impact on determining whether serial killing should be declared 'permissible'. It will remain wrong -- though the discovery may make it easier to identify and, potentially, treat the problem that causes serial killing.


It X truly is not wrong, then it follows that it is perfectly permissible for people to CHOOSE X. If we accept the assumption that there is something wrong with people to CHOOSE X (to the point that the claim, 'A did not have a choice' becomes a viable defense for A's X-ing), then we are starting with the assumption that X is wrong.

Besides, even if homosexuals do not choose to be homosexuals, they do choose to engage in homosexual acts. So, even if the homosexual wants to throw his hands up and say, "Do not blame me; I could not help myself," he cannot say this in defense of his decision to act on those desires.


Both of these arguments only have merit for somebody who has accepted the idea that homosexuality is wrong, and is seeking to avoid blame for that wrongdoing. It is the same as a person who runs over a dozen pedestrians at a crosswalk and protests that, "It was not my fault; the brakes on my car failed. I could not stop even if I wanted to. And trust me, I wanted to. I know that it is wrong to run over pedestrians. Yet . . . it was not my fault."

Homosexuality is not wrong. There is nothing for the homosexual to appologize for. The homosexual should not be saying, "I know it's a bad thing, but it is not my fault." The homosexual should be saying, "It is not a bad thing, it is not a fault."

Which means saying that brain stem differences and 'choice' are irrelevant. There is nothing wrong with CHOOSING to engage in homosexual acts, and the composition of one's brain stem simply does not matter.

yguy

Damned if I know.

Since you brought up the specific Mosaic law, perhaps you should be the one to answer that.

I said the 10C's were in effect before Moses because everyone knew murder, stealing, and the rest of it was wrong before it was codified, just as you and I knew murder was wrong before we knew it was illegal. And whatever it is that told me that, tells me that homosexaulity is not as benign as it's made out to be.

The Naked Mage

It's called COMMON SENSE. Widespread murder, rape, and theft kind of has a habit of shaking a society down to its foundation, y'know? It's only practical to outlaw such acts.

Meanwhile, societies with widespread homosexuality did just fine, save for when non-existent sand genies supposedly slung flaming missiles at them for their arbitrarily-declared "wickedness".