 |
|
Heresson
|
 |
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:34
|
|
quote:
Scenario: a gay male couple and a woman (a total of THREE people) are on an island at the same time. Suddenly everyone else in the world disappears, leaving only the three island-goers.
Question - if you are one of the gay guys, and you are really attracted to your gay partner, and don't really like or feel anything for the girl, what do you do?
A - Stay true and gay, and only "date", WINK WINK, your male friend, and sexually avoid the female,
--OR--
B - Have "relations" WINK WINK with the female, even though you don't want to, in the interests of preserving the species.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:34
|
|
quote:
But there is utility now, where there are people, which is not necessarily related to the future utility of people in the future. By not having children, you are not denying existence to people since you and your contemporaries still exist, so utility applies there, and far more so since it is a question of definite free will, not possible determinism. |
This is shoddy logic. The fact that it didn't happen yet, doesn't mean that it's not, or less important. By the same logic, we shouldn't fight greenhouse gases (after all, we don't know for sure, it's just a theory, a good one), and generally shouldn't give a flying toss about future generations. Yes, I am aware that the utility in question is NOW, and is a certain loss of utility, however, a gain in utility that is immense in comparison is possible, and the chances that this gain will occur are much higher than the difference between the utility functions.
It's like betting 5 bucks for a 1/100 chance to win a million, a great bet, and the fact that it's not certain, or even far from certain doesn't reduce it's ethical value.
Nothing in life is 100% certain. Gay people may find out that they are really bi-sexual, and were forced into predefined categories, etc.
You might say that this is a much slimmer chance than the chance have humanity thrive once again, but then it becomes a question of quantitative difference, and as I've shown, in terms of numbers, it's solid ethical decision-making.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
This is shoddy logic. The fact that it didn't happen yet, doesn't mean that it's not, or less important.
|
That is shoddy logic. You need to elaborate.
quote:
By the same logic, we shouldn't fight greenhouse gases (after all, we don't know for sure, it's just a theory, a good one)
|
It's not a question of "shouldn't" it's a question instead of the pressing need of the alternatives in relationship to that. Is there a better pressing need than reducing greenhouse gases in relationship to doing so? We benefit by continuing to produce them in the short term but are those benefits more fundamental than the benefits of not doing so, assuming the same timeframe? No! Given a different time frame you just in this case weigh up the utility of both actions, but given the situation as previously described, the survival of the human race is irrelevant.
In this example, the utility of benefiting yourself now outweighs that of a hypothetical future with no specific end, unlike reducing greenhouse gas to the end of stopping global warming.
quote:
generally shouldn't give a flying toss about future generations
|
Strawman, as I said before it is simply a question of the hierarchy of needs. Where you have no aim except survival, or no discernable society to function within, the survival of that society is irrelevant. Given a larger number of people your sexuality is irrelevant to the survival anyway!
quote:
a gain in utility that is immense in comparison is possible,
|
By that logic we should have as many children as possible given a high probability that they will have a happy life. That is bad consequential reasoning, even for you, since you ignore the reasons why we dont! One does not have children to the end of preserving the human race, or an altruistic gain in utility. The relevant issue here is personal utility, whereby sexual realisation or survival in the two respective contexts at work here serve that better.
quote:
It's like betting 5 bucks for a 1/100 chance to win a million, a great bet, and the fact that it's not certain, or even far from certain doesn't reduce it's ethical value.
|
See above.
quote:
Nothing in life is 100% certain. Gay people may find out that they are really bi-sexual, and were forced into predefined categories, etc.
|
And you are saying taht decisions in the present shuold be taken on the basis of that uncertainty, even though in the present you know them to be gay? Someone needs to read Husserl and Camus  .
quote:
You might say that this is a much slimmer chance than the chance have humanity thrive once again, but then it becomes a question of quantitative difference, and as I've shown, in terms of numbers, it's solid ethical decision-making.
|
I disagree, since you assume the preservation of the human race to be an ethical end, yet you fail to show me how. It seems self-evident that the welfare and utility of those currently living is an ethical concern but taking decisions SOLELY on the basis of the preservation of a hypothetical seems to wreak of informal fallacy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:34
|
|
Ah email is dead too... screw this
ben.elijah*at*gmail dotcom
Last edited by Whaleboy on 14-08-2004 at 21:26
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I think we should maximize the total number of people there are
JM
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
Wiglaf - Clearly B has been chosen for hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions. In the distant past, sex for reproduction and sex for pleasure were seen as two separate things, so even humans and pre-humans with homosexual tendencies still had hetero sex in order to propagate the species. If they didn't, and all just chose A (going with their gut desires), there would be no homosexuality today, as heterosexuals would be the only ones reproducing. Which is not to say that there are hetero or homosexual "genes" being passed on, but rather that heterosexuality would become so ingrained and reinforced genetically, biologically and psycholologically over the millenia that homosexuality would have no choice but be reduced to a statistical improbability (ie 1/1000000 instead of 1/10).
And as far as marriage, you have to remember that it was only until very recently that marriage did not serve a finite purpose within society (all socieities), and that was to propagate the gene pool, and to secure familial alliances between (often rivaling) family groups or clans. Hence why most marriages across the planet have been arranged for most of human existence. So, only in the past 50 or so years can you say its become a luxury, and only in western society.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Last Conformist
|
 |
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:34
|
|
quote:
How can an action be fallacious? |
You live in the elijaverse ...
Last edited by Last Conformist on 14-08-2004 at 21:51
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-08-2004 17:25
to me.
.
I cant get java to install, I'll pm you my email now if you want, gmail is perfect for this sort of thing (alas no more invites 
|