A recent discussion that had me stumped! (page 4)

ABibleStudent

"Do no harm" to others seems to be a balanced approach to determine what is acceptable to people, societies, and may be acceptable to God, if God interprets the second greatist commandment in Mt 22:39 " And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself." as do no harm to others.

As to who decides what is right, that varies from how developed nations behave versus how members of isolated tribes behave versus if God exists.

To me homosexuality is not good nor bad. Rape, molestation, abuse, and other activities that cause victims is unacceptable and bad.

Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

Robert

xfasfdsfg

The essence of the issue is "do no harm". The relationship must be consensual. For instance, an adult but paralyzed hospital patient is in a vulnerable, dependent position so if a staff member indulges in their prediliction, it is not consensual. Pyromaniac, high potential for harm. Kleptomaniac, did not receive permission from the victims. Young adults who are dependent and living at home, not in a position to offer a consensual relationship. So impulse control is still required in a civilized society. Karen Millen Sale Karen Millen Lace Dress Karen Millen Multicolor Karen Millen One Shoulder

Terry

I see more problems than solutions.

Concerning the consent of one person to another person's actions, for example.

If you are an X (fill in any disapproved social outcast) inside a group (family, organization, community, etc.) trying not to harm anybody

and yet find that the majority of that group DOES NOT CONSENT to your presence---what then?

Focus:

The mere perception by the majority that you cannot be tolerated (for whatever reason) is a peculiar non-consensual situation requiring some remedy.

Should you, an X, be granted the RIGHT TO BE an X even though it disrupts the community at large?

If so, on what BASIS?

TD

WHAT ABOUT FAIRNESS FOR THESE KIND OF PEOPLE--should we tolerate people compelled to light fires and molest kids?"

I would say the fallacy here is Denying the Exception - dicto simpliciter

Morality is not mathematics. Moral issues can rarely be discussed, let alone resolved syllogistically.

littlerockguy

WHAT ABOUT FAIRNESS FOR THESE KIND OF PEOPLE--should we tolerate people compelled to light fires and molest kids?"

I don’t know how this kind of logic has got you stumped. Would straight men who have a strong normal sexual urge and going out and relieving that urge by hooking up with some woman in a bar think of comparing his satisfying his sexual needs to committing arson or molesting children?

If not, why are they comparing gay men who do that with other men they are attracted to? Are some straight people really that fucking stupid and ignorant

LRG

just Ron

The answer is sex contracts. That detail everything including what happens even in the case of conception.

Diest

LRG FTW(For the Win)

It really is that simple. Fulfilling a need that has no harm or limited harm to another person does not rise to to the level of doing harm to another for your own benifit.

Apognophos

The mere perception by the majority that you cannot be tolerated (for whatever reason) is a peculiar non-consensual situation requiring some remedy.

Should you, an X, be granted the RIGHT TO BE an X even though it disrupts the community at large?

If so, on what BASIS?

I think I answered this back on page 1 with my example of Ed Gein, who, after his conviction, lived the rest of his life in a mental hospital until he died of old age. If someone is causing harm to society, regardless of whether they mean to, or can help themselves, you lock them up. This is only morally troubling if you believe that all individuals are created equal. The fact is that we are the result of an imperfect evolutionary process which occasionally turns out defective products. It's sad that it happens, and it sucks to be that product, but we lock them up for the greater good. I see no problem in that.

Justitia Themis

The "legal" age becomes a slippery slope. Is 16 too young? 17, 18...?

That is really beside the point I'm wrestling with.

Being a pyromaniac is not a matter of informed consent.

Being a kleptomaniac is not a matter of informed consent.

As an aside, slippery-slope arguments are not considered "valid" without at least some supporting empirical documentation. Otherwise, it is simply taking an argument to the extreme, which is "invalid" argumentation.

As a society, we draw arbitrary lines all the time because they are necessary for the effecient functioning of society. Period. We don't care that they are arbitrary. Someone who is 20.5 years old cannot legally consume alcohol (in my state) while someone only 6 months older can. We have the ability to individually assess every teenager to see when s/he is old enough to drink, but we cannot due to limited resources. The possible "harm" to the teenager who is mature enough to drink before 21 is so minimal we accept it.

The other behaviors (kleptomania, etc.) are outlawed because they infringe upon other people's autonomy and property rights. On another thread, I wrote about an undergrad genetics class I took in which we discussed the Hatfields and McCoys. Scientists have mapped their genomes, and both families have a gene that it common to violent prisoners. There is evidence that a propensity for violence can be genetically based. However, the harm to society is so great that we outlaw violent behavior--regardless of its possible sources. Protecting life/safety justifies these actions because the harms are far from minimal.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/246373/4/Are-homosexuals-born-that-way-The-March-15-Watchtower-seems-to-say-so

Homosexuality does not harm anyone; therefore, there is no moral justification for outlawing or denigrating it.

Terry

I don’t know how this kind of logic has got you stumped. Would straight men who have a strong normal sexual urge and going out and relieving that urge by hooking up with some woman in a bar think of comparing his satisfying his sexual needs to committing arson or molesting children?

If not, why are they comparing gay men who do that with other men they are attracted to? Are some straight people really that fucking stupid and ignorant

LRG

1. This thread, from my standpoint, has almost nothing to do with homosexuality per se. It has to do with the principle of fairness.

2.We "tolerate" sexual behaviors in our various societies within the defining legal restrictions as to who/what/when/where/how.

3.The appeal to fairness because of nature, however, has become suspect to me. Previous to the above conversation it sounded okay.

4.The Tyranny of the Majority seems to apply on social issues until a counter movement arises to enact legislation for "equality".

Therefore:

5.On what basis do we decide as a Society what is permissable and what is not?

In the U.S. the history of our nation is deeply rooted in Puritan morays. We have deep hang-ups about sex. It is still illegal in some States to practice homosexuality. The excuse given by proponents of anti-gay "morality" is the biblical admonitions condemning such practices.

In Muslim countries where the Politcal rulers are also the Religious leaders, homosexuality can get you killed. Also, a young woman who loses her virginity can be disfigured or killed. I understand this is based on sharia law.

I'm searching for a sensible and simple principle that could be argued against Puritans and Muslim that would allow a kind of "waiver" based on_______whatever, to allow freedom to do______X. At the same time, I'm wondering if that argument (whatever it shapes up to be) is also going to open the door to yet other practices which may include socially forbidden things.

There! Does that help?

A recent discussion that had me stumped!

Share this