 |
| |
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:25
|
|
quote:
Proof is absolute confirmation of the case in point, not the disproof of an arguement. |
quote:
What makes your morality universal, and hence applicable to another? |
Don't know if this is directed at me or Agathon, or both.
Mr. Baggins:
a) 1+1=2, everything else is personal opinion.
b) I am writing an opinion right now.
c) That opinion is shared by the entirety of the scientific community.
c has no merit. Why should we care about the entirety of the scientific community if this is merely opinion?
Secondly, c is not shared by the entire scientific community. Science plays no role in the realm of ethics or morality, although moral concerns define research ethics and funding patterns.
This does not mean that there is no ethics, just because science cannot prove or disprove ethical maxims. For this reason, there are different rationales behind truth claims in ethics, and truth claims in science.
Your question regarding moral absolutes is good. I'm interested to see how Agathon's answer differs from mine.
Christian ethics assume the existence of God, who is omnipotent, omniscient and good. As we are all creations of this God, violating his rules harms us physically and emotionally. While we may deny his existence, these harms remain to indicate our bondage.
In this sense, morality is absolute, and applies to everyone, even those who do not believe in God.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:25
|
|
Great, I chose a proffesor to argue with  
Look, let's talk about something I do remember from philosophy lessons - wasn't there a method established by Kant for judging morals?
(reworded)
Everyone should only act according to ways, which, if the whole of humanity acted the same, wouldn't cause harm or bring it extinct.
I don't remember the actual rule, and it doesn't matter - let's assume is this.
If everyone in this world had a fetish for smelly feet and hairy armpits, and would, in their spare time lick and smell them, what would have gone wrong?
Absolutly nothing. Which is just my point.
When a sexual activity becomes perversive, in the sense that it hurts the person, or others, then I agree it can be deemed immoral.
Children porn, or feet licking for that matter, is wrong because the child is made an active participant of something he doesn't udnerstand, and which can cause damage to his psyche (I'm assuming this according to popular views, perpetuated by psychologists on national TV).
However, if that girl was indeed tied and licked, or licked someone else who was tied up, whether for fun, or for money - how exactly is she morally bad?
And if you say that she is, without it actually having any actual bad effect, then I hereby proclaim this moral measure useless, since it doesn't apply to the real world.
To my understanding, you are inventing a scale of morality, which exists for it's own sake, and then judge people according to it.
If not - explain.
And please, instead of using only topic names, which I may or may not know or remember from my studies and readings, explain the ideas too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
People misuse fact, truth and proof all the time.
Anything other than a mathematic proof in our observable universe is vague. It is not based on a finite system. Mathematics, ultimately is vague too... but thats jumping ahead.
God is an assumption... a Schroedingers cat... any 'absolute truth' thereof is tainted by that assumption.
Your or any one elses morals... are similarly vague... since ethics is not a finite science.
Our observable universe is vague too; demonstrated in the Uncertainty Principal of Quantum Mechanics, in the Casimir effect.
There actually is no universally discernable proof or truth in the universe... everything happens, everywhere, every instant. That is a Quantum Field effect. Practically its demonstrated in the study of Quantum Computing.
Since everything happens... everywhere... everywhen... all things are true and all things are false, and hence truth is relative and limited to your observable state, or 'your skin'.
Since the universe contains a null quantum field state... nothing is true... not even abstract concepts.
MrBaggins
Last edited by MrBaggins on 02-02-2003 at 12:08
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Sounds like you've been reading John Stuart Mill. |
Nope, never have. Must be my own genius.
quote:
I can agree that allowing perverts to fulfil their desires is unlikely to lead to the downfall of civilisation as we know it, without admitting that its morally acceptable (I seem you remember you saying you were gay - for the record I see nothing wrong with homosexuality qua homosexuality, if you were wondering about that). |
So what's your boundary then, and why should your boundaries be the accepted norm? It's a rather subjective thing, after all. You may not deem homosexuality to be a perversion, but others clearly do. Why are you right and they wrong? What gives you the right to deem something perverted when it doesn't involve you?
quote:
I do however think that a society using the "live and let live" rule as the sole principle of organisation would quickly disintegrate. Our society doesn't because most people have internalised rules that go beyond it. |
I am not sure how this applies to the real world, though. I never advocated such a society. But you seem to be on "thin ice" yourself in this argument, because you are setting up as an absolute something that is, without any theology involved, rather nebulous. What one person deems as immoral and perverted isn't necessisarily so to another.
I am willing to bet you that more people than not have sexual fetishes/kinks of some kind or another. That's just the nature of human sexuality. And they are, by and large, harmless. In fact, sexual therapists/psychologists think it is very healthy to indulge in fetishes, as it stimulates the sex drive. It is often recommended to couples as a means of revitalizing sex lives.
Do some people go overboard and turn their fetish into an obsession? Certainly, just as certain people become alcoholics or spend way too much damned time on the internet. Then the problem isn't the fetish itself, but the behavior of the individual in regards to that fetish. I am sure you know some people with pretty kinky fetishes, but you don't know about them because they indulge it in the proper way--in private, and in moderation.
So in short, let the foot-lickers alone. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Demerzel
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18 Christian ethics assume the existence of God, who is omnipotent, omniscient and good. As we are all creations of this God, violating his rules harms us physically and emotionally. While we may deny his existence, these harms remain to indicate our bondage.
In this sense, morality is absolute, and applies to everyone, even those who do not believe in God. |
Does your Christianity demand that you judge everyone else?
Bloody christians - I hate the ones that try to convert you 'cos they think that if you don't believe in God you're desperately unhappy and need their help. I also hate the ones that inflict their opinions & "Gods" rules on you as something you must live to regardless whether you suffer from their "religion" or not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Great, I chose a proffesor to argue with
Look, let's talk about something I do remember from philosophy lessons - wasn't there a method established by Kant for judging morals? |
Yeah, but I'm not a kantian.
quote:
If everyone in this world had a fetish for smelly feet and hairy armpits, and would, in their spare time lick and smell them, what would have gone wrong? |
It's unhealthy for a start. All I am claiming is that there are some unhealthy sexual obsessions.
quote:
When a sexual activity becomes perversive, in the sense that it hurts the person, or others, then I agree it can be deemed immoral. |
Does turning someone into a sleaze count? The problem here is that psychic harm is less easy to quantify than physical harm. Even though that is the case we should be wary of it.
quote:
Children porn, or feet licking for that matter, is wrong because the child is made an active participant of something he doesn't udnerstand, and which can cause damage to his psyche (I'm assuming this according to popular views, perpetuated by psychologists on national TV). |
Many people are active participants of things they don't quite understand, so that can't quite be it. In the case of someone offering sweets to a child so they can take nudie pictures of them it is not clear that the child is even psychologically harmed.
quote:
However, if that girl was indeed tied and licked, or licked someone else who was tied up, whether for fun, or for money - how exactly is she morally bad?
And if you say that she is, without it actually having any actual bad effect, then I hereby proclaim this moral measure useless, since it doesn't apply to the real world. |
I'd say it's bad for her. It's not terrible in the way that necrophilia or coprophilia would be, but it is less than optimal. Would you think a person who continually stabbed himself was sane? I think this is the same sort of thing - people who enjoy coprophilia or fantasize over corpses are mentally ill.
In short, I am a virtue ethicist. This means that I think morality is not merely about the way that one treats others (as some Kantians believe). I think this because I can't make any sense of Kantian morality, as to why we should believe in it. I can make sense of Aristotelian Virtue ethics because it seems to me that everyone has an interest in living well. While there can be some disagreement over what counts as living well we can agree that an alcoholic, a drug addict and a necrophiliac are not living well. Someone who likes being tied up and smelling people's feet is like this, but not nearly as bad - in short there is something wrong with them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
So what's your boundary then, and why should your boundaries be the accepted norm? It's a rather subjective thing, after all. You may not deem homosexuality to be a perversion, but others clearly do. Why are you right and they wrong? What gives you the right to deem something perverted when it doesn't involve you? |
So what if others deem homosexuality to be a perversion. I can't think of any reason why it stops a person living well. On the other hand necrophilia defintely does.
quote:
But you seem to be on "thin ice" yourself in this argument, because you are setting up as an absolute something that is, without any theology involved, rather nebulous. What one person deems as immoral and perverted isn't necessisarily so to another. |
That's true, but unless there is some objectivity to ethics there is no sense in trying to uphold liberalism (for that is a moral thesis). I would say that when people disagree about this sort of thing, at least one of them must be wrong.
As for the theology - I don't need it. All I need is a notion of living well for a human being (which is something we all take for granted and only dispense with when we are trying to justify our liking of silly things). All I am really claiming is that human nature imposes certain limits on what is good for us - for example: too many donuts are bad no matter what we think. Since I don't believe we have a soul and that our minds are nothing more than physical I don't have any problem with making similar claims about "psychic health".
What you seem to be doing is taking wrong in the sense of "God would prohibit it, if he existed." I am trying to get away from this conception of ethics. Mine is simply, "It's bad for people." The benefit of my conception of ethics is that human welfare exists whereas God's existence, or the existence of reasons for accepting universal moral rules may or may not exist.
quote:
I am willing to bet you that more people than not have sexual fetishes/kinks of some kind or another. That's just the nature of human sexuality. And they are, by and large, harmless. |
That's probably true. However, I think once we get to tying people up and smelling feet something has started to go awry - and when we get to sadism something has definitely flipped.
quote:
Do some people go overboard and turn their fetish into an obsession? Certainly, just as certain people become alcoholics or spend way too much damned time on the internet. Then the problem isn't the fetish itself, but the behavior of the individual in regards to that fetish. |
Try this line of reasoning with necrophilia.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Agathon, what's your explanation? |
An extremely limited one.
Human flourishing is something that all human beings have an interest in - there may be various forms of it, but they are limited by our organic nature (that is, not just anything can count).
Thus, it's different for different species - for example, what counts as a good life for a dog won't suit us. Since we are irreducably human we cannot escape that some things count as good for us and others bad.
It does not consist merely in a subjective state of mind, rather it consists in the overall health of the organism, which has subjective aspects either as parts of or epiphenomena caused by the health of the organism.
Only this, human welfare, can count as an object for ethics because it is the only thing which human beings qua human have good reason to pursue, since our humanity places natural limits on what is good for us, and in fact we generally do pursue it (and it is recognition of this fact which is my main reason for endorsing the theory), although our pursuit is frustrated by moral weakness and ignorance.
Of course, this just raises more questions.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
So what if others deem homosexuality to be a perversion. I can't think of any reason why it stops a person living well. On the other hand necrophilia defintely does. |
Let's stop using necrophilia as an example. It is, after all, a particularly extreme fetish, and is about as unsubstantiated to actually exist as snuff films. How about foot-licking then. How does getting turned on by licking the foot of one's sexual partner stop a person from living well?
And I'd also point out that even extreme fetishes (like, say, cannibalism, which is indeed one) almost always end at the realm of fantasy or role-play rather than actually acting them out.
quote:
As for the theology - I don't need it. All I need is a notion of living well for a human being (which is something we all take for granted and only dispense with when we are trying to justify our liking of silly things). All I am really claiming is that human nature imposes certain limits on what is good for us - for example: too many donuts are bad no matter what we think. Since I don't believe we have a soul and that our minds are nothing more than physical I don't have any problem with making similar claims about "psychic health". |
The problem here is that this is also subjective to a large degree. What you and I define as "living well" may be very different. And I'm certain most people who enjoy fetishes live their lives without noticeable detriment. Fetishes aren't all-consuming as you seem to be implying.
The donut example is also subjective. I know people who can eat whatever they want and never gain a pound, never suffer an adverse health effect. And then there are diabetics. And then there are those of us in the middle. Is it morally wrong for a man who can eat as many donuts as he likes and still be healthy to do so because maybe you cannot?
quote:
What you seem to be doing is taking wrong in the sense of "God would prohibit it, if he existed." I am trying to get away from this conception of ethics. Mine is simply, "It's bad for people." The benefit of my conception of ethics is that human welfare exists whereas God's existence, or the existence of reasons for accepting universal moral rules may or may not exist. |
Not at all--God doesn't enter into it. I'm just pointing out that what you may deem to be bad for people isn't necessarily the case.
Certainly, some people can take their fetishes to extremes and have it become an obsession which hurts them. But this applies to all things not done in moderation. If some guy gets hammered and then goes out and stumbles into a river and drowns, I don't see that as a reason to prohibit consuming alcohol.
quote:
That's probably true. However, I think once we get to tying people up and smelling feet something has started to go awry - and when we get to sadism something has definitely flipped. |
Again, I don't think these things necessarily are bad for people. I'm sure there's plenty of people who are turned on by odd things who then go out and lead successful, happy lives. I don't think their fetish should be judged as harmful because a few take it to extremes. It's a case by case basis.
quote:
Try this line of reasoning with necrophilia. |
Fond of extremes, are we?
Find me an actual instance of necrophilia, first.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Let's stop using necrophilia as an example. It is, after all, a particularly extreme fetish, and is about as unsubstantiated to actually exist as snuff films. How about foot-licking then. How does getting turned on by licking the foot of one's sexual partner stop a person from living well? |
Why, it does happen. There are several documented cases. Dennis Nilsen, Peter Sutcliffe, Dahmer (reputedly), and others.
I didn't say that foot licking was a major big deal (unlike necrophilia), but it does seem to indicate a mild form of masochism and desire to be humiliated which I can't think of any reason for. Liking to be beaten and humiliated would seem to be a mild form of insanity. Look, if people want to eat s**t, I'm not going to say the law should stop them. I will say that they are insane. The foot lickers are a less extreme version - they're still nutty though.
quote:
The problem here is that this is also subjective to a large degree. What you and I define as "living well" may be very different. |
This is an assertion rather than an argument. The donut example is most certainly not subjective - it is relative to one's constitution, but that is an objective matter of fact. Someone that thinks donuts are good for him may in fact be wrong.
Similarly, anyone who thinks that anything is good for him may be wrong. Doing well in life is simply more than thinking you are doing so - so is health - and I would argue that the two come down to roughly the same thing.
quote:
Certainly, some people can take their fetishes to extremes and have it become an obsession which hurts them. But this applies to all things not done in moderation. |
Excellent, you are now an Aristotelian.
quote:
Again, I don't think these things necessarily are bad for people. I'm sure there's plenty of people who are turned on by odd things who then go out and lead successful, happy lives. I don't think their fetish should be judged as harmful because a few take it to extremes. It's a case by case basis. |
What's good about licking people's stinky feet? You might say that people like it - that's fine: I don't dispute that at all. What I am claiming is that a person who likes foot licking can reflect on whether his own desires are in fact good for him. In fact we really should engage in this sort of reflection all the time if we want to make the best of things.
Masochism is simply the desire to be harmed in certain ways. These people want to be harmed and humiliated - that's insane.
Anyway, I just watched the first ten minutes of "Joe Millionaire" to see what all the fuss was about (I had never watched it before).
The whole cast and crew are a blight on humanity, in my opinion. What a pack of pathetic, disgusting losers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:25
|
|
quote:
Try this line of reasoning with necrophilia. |
necrophilia can cause you to get sick.
people do 'sex' with in animate objects (ie masturbators, apple pies, watermelons, sex puppets, fake vaginas, cucumbers) all the time, and no one has yet to suffer (except if it's a sharp tool or it got stuck  )
quote:
All I am really claiming is that human nature imposes certain limits on what is good for us - |
And who made you the person to draw the line ?
quote:
in short there is something wrong with them. |
prove that objectively.
quote:
I'd say it's bad for her. It's not terrible in the way that necrophilia or coprophilia would be, but it is less than optimal. Would you think a person who continually stabbed himself was sane? I think this is the same sort of thing - people who enjoy coprophilia or fantasize over corpses are mentally ill.
|
you're going to extremes since your point really doesn't apply to tickling and foot licking. there is absolutely no way you can prove your claim that it is 'bad'. you 'think' it's bad, and that's about it.
quote:
Many people are active participants of things they don't quite understand, so that can't quite be it. In the case of someone offering sweets to a child so they can take nudie pictures of them it is not clear that the child is even psychologically harmed.
|
he is harmed since his rights aren't yet known to him.
it's hard to me to argue about this explicit point, since i don't believe that there should be anything wrong with nudity.
the point is, however, that that child's picture will be used by adults to masturbate over - and he should have the right to know that, and give concent.
it's as wrong as taking candid camera pictures of people in locker rooms - they aren't aware of the full cituation and it isn't in concent.
as for phsyche harm - i meant when they are physically exploited.
quote:
It's unhealthy for a start. All I am claiming is that there are some unhealthy sexual obsessions. |
that's claims.
now prove something.
quote:
Does turning someone into a sleaze count? |
how would one objectively judge that?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:25
|
|
Most of this is pretty worthless as argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
necrophilia can cause you to get sick. |
So you think that's all that's wrong with it?
quote:
And who made you the person to draw the line ? |
Since when do facts about physical and mental health need anyone to "draw a line"? If you were suffering from the bubonic plague would you think it was because of something I said.
quote:
prove that objectively. |
If you accept that a person who wants to stab themselves for fun is mentally ill, I can't see what is wrong with saying that someone who wants to be tortured for kicks is nuts too. What's your definition of mental illness? I think you need to give me an idea before we can get anywhere here. It seems obvious to me that people who want to pretend they are animals or babies for sexual purposes are suffering from some mild form of insanity. Indeed these sort of things come under "paraphilias" in psych textbooks.
quote:
you're going to extremes since your point really doesn't apply to tickling and foot licking. there is absolutely no way you can prove your claim that it is 'bad'. you 'think' it's bad, and that's about it. |
No. I think that foot licking is a particular perversion that is insignificant compared to the desire to torture people, but it is still a perversion. It's not so much the foot licking and bondage but the psychic state of the person who enjoys being dominated and humiliated that is bad. You still haven't answered the question: if someone likes foot licking, can't he also say to himself, is this a good sort of desire to indulge?
It may be even worse - many perversions tend to get more extreme as time goes on - I take it you have heard of Ted Bundy. Look up Jerome Brudos as well.
Anyway, it doesn't have to be a sexual obsession, any kind of unhealthy obsession is bad for you.
quote:
quote:
Many people are active participants of things they don't quite understand, so that can't quite be it. In the case of someone offering sweets to a child so they can take nudie pictures of them it is not clear that the child is even psychologically harmed.
|
he is harmed since his rights aren't yet known to him. |
Complete crap. What sort of harm are you talking about?
quote:
the point is, however, that that child's picture will be used by adults to masturbate over - and he should have the right to know that, and give concent. |
What if he gives consent? Don't tell me that children can't consent to things - this is a legal fiction invented to make adults feel better. Again - many people consent to things they don't really understand - I fail to see how the child is harmed here.
quote:
it's as wrong as taking candid camera pictures of people in locker rooms - they aren't aware of the full cituation and it isn't in concent. |
This is different because the child can see the camera and knows what is going on. Are you telling me that a 12 year old can't understand that someone might want to see pictures of them naked?
You still haven't managed to tell me just what is wrong with child pornography. My answer is that it is the mental state of the consumer of child pornography who is a pervert.
quote:
as for phsyche harm - i meant when they are physically exploited. |
You still haven't shown just what the harm is.
quote:
quote:
It's unhealthy for a start. All I am claiming is that there are some unhealthy sexual obsessions. |
that's claims.
now prove something. |
Feet are often dirty, licking dirty feet is likely to cause oral infections. Don't you agree?
Eating excrement is phenomenally bad for you. Don't you agree?
Desiring to repeatedly experience something that human beings have adapted to avoid (pain and tissue damage) is rather odd, don't you think?
Don't you think there is something mad about someone who has a thing for cucumbers? (to use your example).
Don't you agree that a man who can't stop himself from stealing women's underwear is similar to a drug addict? This is the sort of thing I mean.
quote:
quote:
Does turning someone into a sleaze count? |
how would one objectively judge that? |
Think about some of the chronic womanisers you know.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:25
|
|
quote:
So you think that's all that's wrong with it?
|
one of them.
but that is an arguement against it.
licking feet, has no arguments against it, except that you should be careful not to catch fungi, which you can get through usual sex as well.
quote:
Since when do facts about physical and mental health need anyone to "draw a line"? If you were suffering from the bubonic plague would you think it was because of something I said.
|
No.... but you can definitly and objectively say if a person is ill with the plague or not.
you can not however objectively say, when too much sex is too much. that is your interpertation.
quote:
If you accept that a person who wants to stab themselves for fun is mentally ill, I can't see what is wrong with saying that someone who wants to be tortured for kicks is nuts too. What's your definition of mental illness? I think you need to give me an idea before we can get anywhere here. It seems obvious to me that people who want to pretend they are animals or babies for sexual purposes are suffering from some mild form of insanity. Indeed these sort of things come under "paraphilias" in psych textbooks. |
If someone does not actually believe he is a baby, or an animal, then he's not nuts.
What's the difference between pretending to be a latino lover, a horse or a chunck of foam? It's fantasy.
And people, as I said, like to be tortured, just like they like to be scared.
Ever went to the *forgot it's name* machine, which is basically a closed shape with plasma inside which has visible electric currents going on in the inside.
when you touch it and touch someone else, you and him get shocked.
did you ever did it repeatedly? me and my friends were in a physics museum lately, and we did.
are we mentally ill?
quote:
No. I think that foot licking is a particular perversion that is insignificant compared to the desire to torture people, but it is still a perversion. It's not so much the foot licking and bondage but the psychic state of the person who enjoys being dominated and humiliated that is bad. You still haven't answered the question: if someone likes foot licking, can't he also say to himself, is this a good sort of desire to indulge? |
there is no such thing "a good" sort of desire.
there could be "harmful" or "useful", or for instance "pleasurable" or "unpleasant".
good or bad have no meaning in regards to that. it's a moral judgement which I don't accept.
quote:
It may be even worse - many perversions tend to get more extreme as time goes on - I take it you have heard of Ted Bundy. Look up Jerome Brudos as well. |
Is there any research to prove that?
I would assume that it wasn't small perversions which grew strong, but rather insanity that began only by showing early signs.
how do we differentiate small perversions from early signs of insanity? by judging purely the symptoms - we can't.
by todays standards, almost everyone are insane in a way.
quote:
Anyway, it doesn't have to be a sexual obsession, any kind of unhealthy obsession is bad for you.
|
Aha. why did you add unhealthy?
who said licking feet is less healthy than sucking d*ck?
quote:
What if he gives consent? Don't tell me that children can't consent to things - this is a legal fiction invented to make adults feel better. Again - many people consent to things they don't really understand - I fail to see how the child is harmed here. |
Experiments proved that children have at first simpler grasp of logic, morality and so forth.
younger people don't think through as much, and can envision less potencial outcomes.
that's why early teen sex is to be avoided - they are generally aren't emotionally ready to deal with the responsability and aren't aware of the consequences and so forth.
quote:
This is different because the child can see the camera and knows what is going on. Are you telling me that a 12 year old can't understand that someone might want to see pictures of them naked? |
A 12 may or may not. Depends on what is his sorrounding society.
In any case, a 12 y/o is less equipped to make judgements - which is why 12 y/o people don't vote, for instance.
quote:
You still haven't managed to tell me just what is wrong with child pornography. My answer is that it is the mental state of the consumer of child pornography who is a pervert. |
that is nonsense.
are you going to arrest people for having a mental state now?
maybe you should try and arrest anyone who ever imagined naked children?
this is silly. you can't arrest people for crime thought. there's freedom of speech, but not freedom of mental state?
tell me then, what's the difference between wanting to kill someone and killing him? in both cases the person is bad - he was in a mental state in which he was amok and wanted someone dead. let's assume that it were only enviromental coincidences that lead one to kill, and the other not to.
quote:
You still haven't shown just what the harm is. |
are you seriously claiming that the sole harm in child porn is to the "morals" or "mental state" of the grownup who participated in it????
quote:
Feet are often dirty, licking dirty feet is likely to cause oral infections. Don't you agree?
|
so would licking genitalia.
feet btw, have lots and lots nerve endings. they are (unless you have blisters) among the most sensual parts of your body, and can be just as erogenous (especially for some people ) as, say, the chest and lower abdomen, and even breasts and nipples.
quote:
Eating excrement is phenomenally bad for you. Don't you agree? |
yes, because it contains bodily waste and poisons.
quote:
Desiring to repeatedly experience something that human beings have adapted to avoid (pain and tissue damage) is rather odd, don't you think?
|
so you are now basing your morality on the human norm?
100 years ago, people tried to avoid walking near black cats or under ladders.
800 years ago, people tried to avoid cleaning themselves more than twice per year.
quote:
Don't you think there is something mad about someone who has a thing for cucumbers? (to use your example).
|
no.
quote:
Don't you agree that a man who can't stop himself from stealing women's underwear is similar to a drug addict? This is the sort of thing I mean.
|
wait. if he can't stop himself - then it's a problem. he hasn't control of his urges. obviously a problem since delaying satisfaction is a key strategy needed for survival in general, and esp. in a civilised organized society.
but i'm talking about those who can stop themselves - those who like collecting underwears. or stamps for that matter. or post cards.
assuming no women are hurt, and he does other usual life activities, no i don't thing there's anything wrong with it.
sure, it's odd, and wierd to collect and sniff female panties. but no one can say it's wrong.
isn't apolyton an addiction? isn't posting texts and lecturing about morals to people from other places on the globe wierd? isn't desiring to repeatedly argue about ethics rather odd?
quote:
Think about some of the chronic womanisers you know.
|
since when am i an objective device for measuring the amount of sleaze in chronic womanisers?
that's my point. my outlook on life is completely based on my conceptions of normality and pleasantness in society.
therefore, except for several norms which I think are important as rules, to avoid chaos and allow a structured society, I'm all for being liberal and pluralist.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:25
|
|
She didn't break any laws.
She was working making an honest buck and pulling her weight in society.
Anything else is illrelivant.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:25
|
|
As I was saying before I was called away...
We aren't talking about the law Ozz - we are talking about morality.
Anyway...
Let's see - I think we should stop getting involved in a quote war, it doesn't lend itself to clarity.
If you want to say that the law should generally avoid locking people up because they like licking feet and bondage, then I agree. There are limits on what should be illegal, since making all immoral acts illegal would have worse consequences than not doing so.
My theory is roughly this: morality is about doing well in life. Every normal person has an interest in this (it's a natural fact). Any other attempt to find grounds for morality or some sense of value in the world fails (God, the nature of reason, etc.).
Moreover, what counts as doing well in life is not whatever you think it is - our organic nature imposes certain constraints upon us.
This is the case with certan things such as bodily health - a state of an organism in which everything works as it should. This has very little to do with a person's subjective take on things and everything to do with the constitution of their body.
People like to say that this is not the case with mental health. I disagree since I think that mental events just are physical events. There is, however, a certain vagueness in the language we use about mental events which you are exploiting in this debate. In short, psychological theories do not have the same degree of precision as physics or chemistry. I think this is due in part to historical accident and our feeble understanding of the relationship between brain states and mental states. I could go on, but that's the general point.
If we had a better understanding of the mind then we would have a better understanding of mental health. We don't, but we can see that a better understanding of the mind would comprise a physical theory, because mental states are physical states. This being so, there is no problem with treating mental problems on par with physical problems. Anyone who says otherwise probably believes in souls or some other metaphysical hangover from the age of religion.
From this it behooves us to take a high degree of interest in our mental health since we are more intimately involved with our mental states (since "mind" is strongly identified with the self); much more so than what we call our "physical" health (although this is misleading since mental states just are physical states).
A normal person has no desire to be degraded or humiliated. These are "bad" desires to have since being degraded or humiliated makes us worse off. Sexualising degradation or humiliation or violence or dominance replaces normal sexual desire with something else. These are not normal or healthy - they result from traumatic experiences in youth or some other trauma or misdirection of the sexual impulse.
What I am talking about, and why I object to this sort of thing is that it deprives a person of a great good by replacing a sexual and emotional relationship based on equality with one based on subordination or domination. A similar phenomenon is evident in women who choose abusive partners. By definition, one simply cannot engage in a relationship of equals when subordination or domination is equated with sexual desire. To be sure, there are many relationships like this - they are simply bad relationships. People who manage to sustain loving sexual relationships as equals are simply happier than those who don't. Look around at the people who are happiest - these are the people in long term relationships based on equality in which there are no elements of sadism or masochism. For some reason such relationships have been selected for, which is why people are happier when they are in them. Other sorts of relationships are called "dysfunctional" precisely because they don't serve the interests of the related parties.
A man who views his wife as a sexual chattel is incapable of seeing her as a subject, rather he sees her as an object of his will. Similarly a masochistic person seeks to make themselves a chattel of another. You simply cannot have a relationship of equals in such a situation.
A for child pornography, all the things you have mentioned are contingent. The child may be harmed socially, psychologically or physically, or did not consent, but whenever this is not the case you have no reason for being against it (the "age of consent" is a legal fiction - there will always be exceptions - however I oppose child pornography for the first three reasons as well). The reason I gave prohibits child pornography simply because the psychology of the child abuser is perverted. This holds in all cases of people enjoying child pornography, bestiality, etc.
And as for the unhealthy actions of those licking genitalia, etc. I suggest that people wash before they do these things. The case described is one in which people lick dirty feet - not because they didn't bother to wash, but because they enjoy the degradation.
And obiwan - that is the stated reason for the law, but I could never imagine a case in which a child pornographer was let off because it was determined that the child gave informed consent.
Having said that even if the law prohibits it (which is a good idea) a case in which a child is not harmed and gives informed consent poses a problem for non-virtue ethicists since it doesn't appear to be immoral.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-02-2003 11:07
On a Saturday night, no less!!
ACK!
|