scigirl

In the homosexuality thread, Machiavelli made the following argument as to why homosexuality specifically is immoral:

I was wondering if M wished to elaborate on this theory. From my point of view: If we eliminated accidents and homicide/suicides, we would all still die of something, and that something would be genetic. Some diseases are purely genetic in nature (sickle cell anemia), others are multifactorial and depend on a complex interplay of having the wrong genes in the wrong environments (cardiovascular disease).

So we are all genetically deviant, really. What exactly is your point?

If you want to claim that actions that lead to a decrease in evolutionary fitness, than a homosexual who produces offspring via in vitro fertilization is now 100% fit (and thus not deviant anymore). Catholic priests, on the other hand, are always more deviant than gay men and women who do choose to have children.

If you want to instead use suffering as a pre-req for moral actions, than surely getting a tattoo is more painful than anal sex.

In other words - you sound to me like a bigot, and you use whatever is handy to justify your bigotry when the line of reasoning is clearly irrational.

scigirl

scigirl

Oh this is too funny - I'm sorry to keep picking on Machiavelli, but it's just so easy!

In the abortion thread, M states the following:

So according to Machiavelli, the following things are immoral:

1) Abortion
2) bringing a child into this world with a genetically deviant condition
3) acting in a way that decreases our evolutionary fitness.

So imagine Machiavelli becomes a genetic counselor, and a couple walks into his office that each have one gene for sickle cell anemia. If they produce offspring, then there is a 1 in 4 chance they will have a child with sickle cell anemia, thus immorally causing undue suffering. Unless of course they terminate that pregnancy, but that would also be immoral. They could adopt or get a sperm donor, but that would also be immoral because the evolutionary fitness of the parents would drop (remember - fitness has to do with the number of related viable offspring and nothing else!)

Well let's just hope that M chooses a different career.

scigirl

Machiavelli

I'm a bigot?
I'm a dogmatist, fanatic, zealot. bigoted biased, intolerant, one-sided, partial, and prejudiced. Whew....

Kindof disappointed in your conclusion there scigirl.

I'm merely subscribing to the position that has been desired by the gay community all along. They were born that way.

Perhaps you have issue with my basis for what I consider the ideal, genetic fitness, as you put it. What else is there to base our values?

I guess my values have a presupposition. Basically that it is desirable to be genetically viable and fit. Certainly you'd agree that statistically speaking, homosexuals aren't as succesful at passing their genes along as heterosexuals are. While succes to the individual is relative, from an evolutionary standpoint, it is very clear. Is your issue with me that you think I'm wrong to base my opinion on a scientific principle.

If I'm a bigot, precicely what seperates you from me? Do you think I don't like gay people? Do you think I want to hurt them?

scigirl

You use statements like "heterosexuals aren't on the same level as homosexuals," and tacitly imply that people with sickle cell anemia are somehow less of a person because they simply got unlucky. You stated the following:
"Just as I would find it immoral to say that it's 'ok' for someone to have a pain filled life of sicle cell anemia."

Could you please elaborate on this statement? What should we say to, and about, patients with sickle cell anemia? It's NOT ok for someone to have HbS/HbS (the genetic designation)? If that's true, than aren't you tacitly implying a few things about their worth and existence?

scigirl

Machiavelli

You're quite good at misconstruing someones comments.
Perhaps you should re-read my posts regarding abortion. Especially the part where I said I thought abortion should be legal.

Nor did I say bringing a genetically deviant child into the world was immoral. If you disagree, please show me where.

Never did I say anything about "acting in a way that decreases evolutionary fitness" was immoral. Fiction seems to be your talent.

Would it be moral to you to ignore that some kid had MD. And that since you ignore this, he has the same responsibilities to care for himself, earn a living, get around, and shelter himself. To me, to disregard his condition and treat him as equal would be immoral.

scigirl

I'm shocked at this statement - I would think that a person such as yourself that used a 5-syllable word as a nickname would come up with something better than that. Do you think that a mormon family who has 15 kids but can't afford them and has to go on welfare is more moral than say, my aunt who chose to have no children yet she works for social services and helps other people on a daily basis?

So? I don't use procreation as my standard for morality.

Yes obviously. However, I do not use evolutionary fitness to define morality.
Yes, I think it's wrong to derive morality from some arbitrarily defined scientific principle. Why that one, why not a different one?

Espeically when many different human traits are not easily defined as "fit." A great many people can now produce offspring that probably could not in the ancestral environment. Are these people more moral, or less moral, now? A great many genetic conditions don't affect humans until after their reproductive age, so their evolutionary fitness is still essentially 100%, yet they still suffer.

scigirl

scigirl

A necessary evil? Oh yeah, you are Machiavelli, sorry I forgot. How can you think that something is completely disgusting, yet also be legal? If you think there are special cases where abortion is ok, than clearly it isn't as disgusting as you say it is.

So what exactly are you saying??

AHH I think I may have understood. You are trying to equate homosexuality with MD because in the former, they can't make babies so they are "disabled" and should be treated differently by society, and in the latter, they can't move around without a wheelchair and so they are disabled and should be treated differently. Did I get it right this time?

scigirl

scigirl

From the other thread, you stated,
And I asked,
We should probably discuss this topic here since it is sort of off topic (I'm sorry but sickle cell anemia and homosexuality aren't exactly the same condition!)

So I really am interested to hear - how should society treat people with certain medical conditions? Do you have a problem with our current methods? If so, what? Secondly, how does this have anything to do with homosexuality and the capacity to breed? I'm waiting for the link - just like I was during Star Wars II (ok Aniken has teen angst - how does that make him the evil overlord of the universe - maybe I'm just missing something!!)

scigirl

P.S. I find it amusing that you are so upset with me at calling you a bigot. Your post in that homosexuality thread was the following:
Ok, from the tone and style of the above post, it is clear that you are the poster child for gay rights activism. Therefore I take back my bigotry accusation. Now I simply accuse you with having a very strange way of dictating morality - but no stranger than using a book of middle eastern fairy tales I guess.

Daleth

Mach said:
Check 1. No morality positive or negative because there's no choice.

Check 2. It is not desirable because it doesn't lead to further propogation of the species, explaining the previous use of the word "deviant." Because as we all know we need to make as many new humans as possible and fast or we're gonners. I assume this also means that a person who has never wanted children and never has any is also deviant because they're a genetic dead end.

Check 3. I do find it immoral for our society to deem having sickle cell on a level ground with not having sickle cell. My basis is that it is counter to the principal of evolutionary success. Just as I would find it immoral to say that it's 'ok' for someone to have a pain filled life of very poor eyesight.

Society should not treat people equally because they have a genetic difference? Or should we treat people equally but it's unethical to say it's OK that they have a given difference? Is it a genetic dead end only if one doesn't breed, or is it always a genetic dead end to have a deviant gene like one that causes homosexuality or sickle cell or very poor eyesight?

You dove into a thread, made a single short statement that didn't involve ethics and expected all of us to fill out in our minds what you might think of the subject ethically. You then said "flame away." You're a troll. I didn't flame away, though. I suggested abe not play your game.

Dal

Alonzo Fyfe

I must start with the obligatory response: there is no moral obligation to evolutionary fitness.

On a personal level, the second sentence out of my present wife's mouth when I asked her for a date was, "I can't have any children." I married her anyway. I had a moral obligation to drop that relationship right there and pursue a "fertile" female? Right.

On a philosophical level, you cannot derive an 'ought' conclusion from purely factual statements. This principle of logic was first presented by David Hume -- that since the 'ought' relationship is a different type than an 'is' relationship, then something needs to be said about how one can be derived from the other.

There is no value exept that which relates states of affairs and desires. Any particular individual might desire genetic fitness (whatever that means). But one cannot infer from this that others OUGHT to value it as well. To claim that genetic fitness has some "ought to be valuedness" intrinsic within it requires some type of account of what this "ought to be valuedness" is and how it works. The best conclusion to reach is that it does not exist.

The difference between homosexuality and sicle cell anemia and other characteristics has nothing to do with genetic fitness. It has everything to do with their capacity to fulfill desires.The former does not thwart desires, and the second does. The first one is not bad, the second one is.

If one wants to look at the genetic facts, we can bring up the classic arguments of kin selection and the like. Only one ant in an ant colony can have children. The rest serve this one ant, having no children of their own. They pass on their genes vicariously by devoting their energies, not to their own children, but to children who are genetically related.

A human who has no children of his own, but devotes his time instead to promoting the well-being and survivability of others generally. Such a person might indeed be very successful at replicating his genes -- and ours too, in the process.

In other words, just as it assists the ant species to have members who do not have their own offspring to care for, it may benefit the human species to have a percentage of the population not concerned with their own children who can devote their energies to the welfare of society as a whole.

At least, given that I have no children of my own, and will not have, I like the opportunity to spend time promoting the welfare of other humans generally. But that is just me.

Yet, none of this has any moral relevance. The moral value of any assistance I may to provide to society in general has to do with whether that assistance fulfills desires. It has nothing to do with my own genetic fitness. If genetic fitness comes about as an unintended side effect (as it likely will), then fine. But it is not the measure of value.