posted
My intent isn't to clarify other people's positions. If they wish to clarify for themselves, my posting what I've posted does not prevent them from doing so.
However, you haven't clarified anyone's position beyond "No its not!" which, frankly, is not much clarity at all.
*shrug* People keep telling me its possible to support proposition 8 without being a bigot. I wish someone would SHOW me how its possible to support proposition 8 without being a bigot, or accepting someone else's bigotry as strong enough reason to vote with them.
But that hasn't happened yet.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't heard any arguments that don't fall into those categories. The difference is that he doesn't find them valid and I do. Frankly, I haven't heard any other argument from the other side that doesn't fall into the "its a bigoted law" argument. That isn't valid for me because all laws are bigoted toward someone.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
I'm not sure what definition you're using, Occasional, but by the one found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary it's hard to say that laws are usually bigoted.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ever heard of hate the sin, but love the sinner? Chances are that is something that you don't believe can exist and therefore it isn't surprising you don't understand how someone can support a measure like Prop 8 without "hate" or "bigotry." The law is not anti-gay, but anti-gay marriage. That those who are against Prop 8 can't see the difference is there own problem.
Are laws against smoking, for instance, bigotry toward smokers? I never saw them riot and attack non-smokers.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So lung cancer is the lawmakers' "opinion" or "prejudice" against smokers? Or is it grounded in studies about facts? A law against drivers who ignore red lights is not there because lawmakers hate drivers who ignore red lights, it's there because ignoring red lights can result in accidents which can result in harm done to other people.
No matter how hard I try I can't find the equivalent demonstrable harm in gay marriages. Without it the law is based on simply personal opinion, hence qualifying it as bigotry seems appropriate.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:No matter how hard I try I can't find the equivalent demonstrable harm in gay marriages.
That would be the key issue, I think.
A lot of things count as bigotry. But when bigotry is justified, we tend to overlook or excuse it. What people are saying here is that the arguments put forward here are not suitable justifications for the bigotry that unquestionably exists.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Kat, I'm with Paul on this one. I have never seen an argument against gay marriage that hasn't boiled down to those two, plus "I believe God doesn't want it."
Me, too. And I have yet to see the God argument stand up to much scrutiny.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have yet to see the God argument stand up to much scrutiny.
Can you clarify this statement, kmboots? It seems to me that if someone's reasons for opposing SSM are strictly, "Because God said so," unless they also claim to belong to your particular religion, there's not too much about which you can argue.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Depends on how wide your definition of "particular religion" goes. For Catholics using the authority of the Church - well you've already heard my arguments about that.
For most other Christians, we are operating on the same turf and the arguments they give are scripture based and pretty refutable. And fairly inconsistent as their application of scripture is usually also inconsistant. (Paul wrote a lot of things we are able to put into context.)
For "personal revelations" they would have to answer why their personal revelation is more valid than my personal revelation.
Otherwise, you are right. To argue with some religious viewpoints on gay marriage, I would have to argue with them about the basic premise of their religion. Which is certainly doable, but not nice and certainly not allowed here.
And none of those things are likely to really change most people's minds anyway. They just refuse to continue the conversation.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:While I do not know that everyone who supported proposition 8 is a bigot, the proposition itself was prejudicial without valid reason (that is, there is no reason I've yet seen that I accept as valid for defining marriage between a man and woman within the legal framework of marriage that currently exists), which is essentially the definition of bigotry.
You could call almost ANY law "bigotry" in the exact same way, if that were the definition of bigotry. For instance, if one thought there was no valid reason why 18 year olds can't drink, that'd be a law based on bigotry under the way you are using the word. If one thought there was no valid reason why abortion shouldn't be legal, that could be considered a law based on bigotry against women under your definition. If one thought there's no reason to limit gun enthusiasts from owning all sorts of weapons, one could call gun laws a form of bigotry against gun enthusiasts by your definition above. In other words, you're making "bigotry" so broad that it almost has no meaning.
That's not what bigotry is. Bigotry is an attitude. It is disliking or distrusting a group of people based solely on some characteristic of that group, rather than looking at them as individual people.
Laws have no attitudes so laws can't be bigots. Laws can reflect the bigoted attitudes of those who made those laws, but that doesn't mean we can assume that, in this case, ALL the people voting for Prop 8 did so out of bigotry.
quote: lot of people have done so, and all their reasons have boiled down to either been "tradition," or "gay people aren't as good as straight people." Which leaves me with the conclusion that it is indeed a black and white issue.
One of the main arguments I've heard used is along the lines of "homosexual behavior is a wrongful behavior, and allowing gay marriage will increase that behavior." The underlying idea is: hate the sin and enact laws to encourage the people tempted to sin to not sin. I find both the major assumptions underlying that line of argument to be very suspect, but it is a line of argument does not boil down to either of the two you listed above.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, could you clarify that? What premises would insist on a literal reading of one of Paul's letters (for example) and a contextual or metaphorical reading of another?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:One of the main arguments I've heard used is along the lines of "homosexual behavior is a wrongful behavior, and allowing gay marriage will increase that behavior." ...it is a line of argument does not boil down to either of the two you listed above.
It does, because the premise of "homosexual behavior is a wrongful behavior" doesn't stand up to scrutiny unless you believe its wrongful behavior because "God doesn't like it".
Some arguments don't appear to belong to those categories until you deconstruct them a bit, but I've been a participant in just about every gay marriage debate on hatrack in the last 8 years, and it all comes down to one of those three.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
RE: Paul and Tom's arguments: what do you think of Megan McArdle's long musing on the topic? While certainly you might disagree with her conclusions, it strikes me that her concerns are entirely logical. And the woman is hardly a homophobe.
I sympathize with your moral outrage, but I'm not sure how exactly it helps us resolve the problem. More constructive, I think, would be to actually address the concerns of your opponents, as I outlined in my earlier post that apparently nobody read.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for the link. I'll read it and let you know.
I don't know that the concerns of my opponents can be addressed. It is they that are fueling the fears you mentioned. For example, even though the New Jersey pavillion issue has been addressed many, many times, just the other night a man on former Gov. Huckabee's programs used it as an example of how churches would be required to perform gay marriage. While bad behaviour on the part of SSM supporters is unhelpful - as well as being bad, I don't think that reasonable behaviour is going to gain them much.
I am placing my bets on time.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Okay, could you clarify that? What premises would insist on a literal reading of one of Paul's letters (for example) and a contextual or metaphorical reading of another?
It kind of depends on the religion, doesn't it?
I mean, the interpretation of Revelations as literal/metaphorical varies from church to church; I imagine that similar happens with other difficult parts of the Bible.
In any case, that wasn't what I was talking about. You claim that "the arguments they give are scripture based and pretty refutable. And fairly inconsistent as their application of scripture is usually also inconsistant." I don't find that this is true-- quite the opposite.
The arguments I've read stating that the Bible supports (or at least doesn't condemn) homosexual relationships always strike me as having a rather studied and selective view of the text.
How do you determine which parts of the Bible are metaphorical and which are literal? The fact that context is important in understanding why Paul had a hair-fetish may not mitigate the idea that God wants women to cover their heads.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Her claim here -- that things often have unimaginable effects -- is indeed a powerful argument against change of all kind.
The question is whether this particular change -- the open removal of the gendered component of marriage -- is one that will be harmful to society. She argues correctly that it is best to look at the marginal cases, here.
And my question is: who are these marginal cases, who would otherwise marry someone of the same sex but now cannot? Are there many of them who, when married, will harm society in some way?
From the other end, who are the marginal cases who are now married, but would not get married if marriage were not a gendered institution? Is their marriage currently valuable to society?
I can't identify the harm in these propositions.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read your post Matt, and tried to write a response for it, and abandoned it for not being clear and my efforts to clarify weren't helping. I figured someone else would give it a better response.
The basic component of that post was that the gay rights movement had no choice in treating organized religion as the enemy, since many of the leadership in Christian churches preach that their lifestyle is evil, and that gays themselves are an abomination before God. Until a church stops preaching this, their really can't be a reasonable dialog between that church and gay rights activists. Some churches are less extreme than this, but still preach that homosexuality should be discouraged and certainly would not support laws that could be perceived as endorsing the lifestyle.
The Christian churches that do not actively oppose gay marriage could be brought on as allies (as I'm sure some already have). But if a church opposes gay rights, they are inherently an enemy of the gay rights movement, whether we wanted them as an enemy or not.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: In defense of the cat (and Scott), the experiment is not about whether you know whether the cat is alive or dead, but the fact that -- if you don't assume the cat to be a valid "observer" -- the cat is simultaneously both.
Not being sure that you've actually convinced somebody of something is, as far as I can tell, nothing like knowing that the person is simultaneously convinced and skeptical.
I'm conflating the concepts of the Heisenberg Principle and Schrödinger's Cat. While the response of the person I argue against is unobservable until my post is made, I can also not observe a person's argument until they have posted in response to me. So, the act of arguing collapses the field in which an infinite number of responses exist, leaving us with one. Given that as an assumption, one attempts to predict the likelihood of any given response, and interfere with that response before it is formed, or at least before it is *wholly* formed (because certain elements of a response form as the other person reads your argument). This is the essence of persuasive writing- at least in the very best argumentative essays I've read. Your responses are shaped by the text, until eventually the author gains trust with the reader, and can win him/her over.
This line of thinking sort of branches off from a lecture I attended when I was in school in England, about Moby Dick. The professor argued that Moby Dick's genius was essentially the pursuit of total credibility. He connected the motivation to Emerson (which is obvious from other factors, like the fact that they knew each other), and the idea that the truth of a statement, or a character, or a story, was in its total application to any individual. Melville's working theory was that a world that was totally real and lifelike in complexity would offer the most profound experience of human knowledge. One problem with this was that he ended up writing a book that was practically an encyclopedia of banal things... but the impulse has been strong in our culture ever since.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
At first read (and I will read it again) it seems to be the "society is better when everyone fits into their proper molds so we had better not encourage people who don't fit" argument.
I find that argument to be the most obnoxious of all. Society may work better when everyone "fits" for those who fit; it pretty much sucks for people who don't.
Marriage has not always been as it is today. It has been many things - not a few of which regarded women as property. Society may have functioned better when women had no say when women were property or had no options except to get married or had no escape from a bad marriage. It worked great for (most)men. It worked just fine for women who wanted nothing more than to be wives and mothers and who got lucky enough to have the life they wanted. It didn't work for a lot of other women.
I am offended by the idea that society should be geared to work only for those who "fit" certain "ideals" of gender.
ETA: I read it again and I have the same response. I am reminded (not to belabour the race/orientation thing, but it will keep offering obvious parallels) of those who defended slavery because to abolish it would destroy antebellum society. They were right; it did. I am okay with that.
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: The basic component of that post was that the gay rights movement had no choice in treating organized religion as the enemy ...
Alternatively, statistically religion was the strongest factor affecting the vote after party identification and ideology (conservative vs. liberal). Statistically, organized religion is the enemy of gay marriage.
quote: Figure 1 displays the relative size of the impact of each variable on the vote. The lengths of the bars in Figure 1 correspond to the percentage of votes affected by each variable. As shown in this figure, party identification and ideology had substantial impacts on the ultimate result: the two variables each affected an estimated 15 percent of the vote, a contribution about three times the size of race and gender. Religiosity (which affected the votes of 12 percent of Californians) and age (9 percent) also had substantial effects. Despite the intense attention placed on race and ethnicity as factors in determining the vote on Proposition 8, this variable only affected about six percent of the total vote.
Interesting, this relates to the tangent on race.
quote: As shown in Figure 4, African Americans are more religious (as measured by frequency of attendance at religious services) than any other racial or ethnic group of California voters. As a whole, 43 percent of Californians attend religious services at least once per week. The share of African Americans attending services with this frequency is much higher: 57 percent. This difference in frequency of attendance between African Americans and the rest of the population is statistically significant. As shown in Figure 5, controlling for frequency of religious attendance helps explain why African Americans supported Proposition 8 at higher levels than the population as a whole. Among Californians who attend worship at least weekly, support for Proposition 8 was nearly uniform across all racial and ethnic groups. Among those who attend worship less than weekly, majorities of every racial and ethnic group voted “no” on Proposition 8. The differences that remain among groups are not statistically significant at the 95% level of confidence.
posted
My impression of the linked page is that it quite clearly fits the "tradition" category.
We've done things a certain way for a while, and we shouldn't change the way things work because we aren't sure of the consequences. Its a view that's been argued repeatedly here, and has led to some good discussions.
The standard argument against it comes down to it being a terrible shame to maintain a bigoted tradition because we are afraid that we might have unintended negative results.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: One of the main arguments I've heard used is along the lines of "homosexual behavior is a wrongful behavior, and allowing gay marriage will increase that behavior." ...it is a line of argument does not boil down to either of the two you listed above.
It does, because the premise of "homosexual behavior is a wrongful behavior" doesn't stand up to scrutiny unless you believe its wrongful behavior because "God doesn't like it".
There are other lines of reasoning that don't involve God under which homosexual behavior could be considered wrong. The main one that I've heard is that it stems from a more general argument that sex is a fundamentally sacred thing that should not be done for the wrong reasons. The idea behind that view is that it should be reserved for procreation and not done just for pleasure.
But more generally, there are plenty of people who believe that some behaviors are simply wrong period, regardless of whatever utilitarian value those behaviors might hold.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Marriage has not always been as it is today.
This is true. However, until very recently, same gendered marriage has not been on the table in most societies where the marital relationship has been the means of determining inheritance, spousal care, and raising of children.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But more generally, there are plenty of people who believe that some behaviors are simply wrong period, regardless of whatever utilitarian value those behaviors might hold. "
Depending on the specific moral phrasing of the person in question, this falls either under the "tradition," "I'm a bigot," or "god," category.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Depending on the specific moral phrasing of the person in question, this falls either under the "tradition," "I'm a bigot," or "god," category.
No, it doesn't.
For instance, if someone believes there is simply a universal rule that it is always wrong to lie, that moral belief does not boil down to any of those three.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The main one that I've heard is that it stems from a more general argument that sex is a fundamentally sacred thing that should not be done for the wrong reasons. The idea behind that view is that it should be reserved for procreation and not done just for pleasure.
A belief that I've only ever encountered from people who believe this because God says this. Again, it comes down to God not approving.
A) I don't approve of homosexual marriage because I believe homosexuality to be a wrong action and predict that homosexual marriage will increase incidence of homosexual activities. B) I believe homosexuality is a wrong action because sex should be reserved for procreation and not done just for pleasure. C) I believe sex should be reserved for procreation and not done just for pleasure because God says so.
This argument, deconstructed, still comes down to God not liking it.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Marriage has not always been as it is today.
This is true. However, until very recently, same gendered marriage has not been on the table in most societies where the marital relationship has been the means of determining inheritance, spousal care, and raising of children.
And now it is on the table. So? Selling your daughters is now (mostly) off the table. Thank God we can change what is on the table.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:At first read (and I will read it again) it seems to be the "society is better when everyone fits into their proper molds so we had better not encourage people who don't fit" argument.
I think you had better read it again. That is not the argument made at all. The argument is rather, "When you say 'I do not see how X will have a bad effect'", you are making a statement about the limits of your own imagination, not about X.
The best response, I think, would be to point out that the US has no need to use its imagination; Europe has very kindly done the experiment, without any of the effects comrade McArdle mentions in her three examples.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:A belief that I've only ever encountered from people who believe this because God says this. Again, it comes down to God not approving.
Just because you've only encountered it coming from people who base their morality on God, doesn't mean it is impossible to offer such an argument without God. That'd be like saying that if every moral person you encountered believes in God then you need to believe in God in order to be moral.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just because you've only encountered it coming from people who base their morality on God, doesn't mean it is impossible to offer such an argument without God.
So the best we can come up with for an argument against homosexual marriage that doesn't reflect one of those three categories is a hypothetical person who believes that sex is only to be done for procreation, but doesn't base this belief on his religion.
quote:Just because you've only encountered it coming from people who base their morality on God, doesn't mean it is impossible to offer such an argument without God.
That's fine, but it's still indistinguishable from "God said so." It just turns into "I said so." In either case, it's not a reasoned position which can be rationally argued.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, saying something is wrong, regardless of utilitarian outcome, is saying "I hate this." Once you remove utility, all you're left with is personal preference (whether that preference is justified by god, one's emotions, or past tradition, or something that eventually fits into one of those three categories).
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:A belief that I've only ever encountered from people who believe this because God says this. Again, it comes down to God not approving.
Just because you've only encountered it coming from people who base their morality on God, doesn't mean it is impossible to offer such an argument without God. That'd be like saying that if every moral person you encountered believes in God then you need to believe in God in order to be moral.
One can 'derive' a moral system based on primitive, (relatively) uncontroversial axioms like 'it's bad to hurt people'. What axioms, without recourse to God, would you use to derive that gay marriage is wrong?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: ... The best response, I think, would be to point out that the US has no need to use its imagination; Europe has very kindly done the experiment, without any of the effects comrade McArdle mentions in her three examples.
Or Canada for that matter if you want to pick a society that is more similar to the US, for better or for worse, especially Alberta.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres, saying something is wrong, regardless of utilitarian outcome, is saying "I hate this." Once you remove utility, all you're left with is personal preference (whether that preference is justified by god, one's emotions, or past tradition, or something that eventually fits into one of those three categories).
1.I don't agree that the only two possible moral systems are utilitarianism or personal prefernce. There are plenty of moral systems out there that rely on moral absolutes other than "the greatest utility" and which don't amount to "do whatever you personal preference is".
2. Please note the difference between saying "I hate this" and "I hate THEM".
quote:One can 'derive' a moral system based on primitive, (relatively) uncontroversial axioms like 'it's bad to hurt people'. What axioms, without recourse to God, would you use to derive that gay marriage is wrong?
Not all moral systems are based solely on uncontroversial axioms. Some have very controversial axioms - like "the ends justify the means".
It's possible to have a moral system where one of the fundamental axioms is "Sex is a sacred thing to be done between a man and a woman only for the purpose of having children."
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My argument wasn't to show that society won't change. The argument I was making is that sometimes society should change.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"1.I don't agree that the only two possible moral systems are utilitarianism or personal prefernce. There are plenty of moral systems out there that rely on moral absolutes other than "the greatest utility" and which don't amount to "do whatever you personal preference is". "
The moral system doesn't say "do whatever your personal preference is," but all moral codes that are not based on some measurable good are arbitrary. Whether the arbitrainess comes from god, tradition, or internal processes, its still arbitrary.
"2. Please note the difference between saying "I hate this" and "I hate THEM". "
The distinction is meaningless in the context of an action that a person engages in as a central part of their life.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: 1.I don't agree that the only two possible moral systems are utilitarianism or personal prefernce. There are plenty of moral systems out there that rely on moral absolutes other than "the greatest utility" and which don't amount to "do whatever you personal preference is".
There are- but the axiomatic base of any reasonable moral system does not contain complex propositions like 'gay marriage is wrong'. So suggest reasonable axioms that would lead to this conclusion.
Edit: sorry didn't see that you had responded to my earlier post.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The moral system doesn't say "do whatever your personal preference is," but all moral codes that are not based on some measurable good are arbitrary. Whether the arbitrainess comes from god, tradition, or internal processes, its still arbitrary.
I don't think moral rules are any more arbitrary than 1+1=2 is arbitrary.
But, if you DO think they are arbitrary, you've got to at least admit that utility is arbitrary too. After all, there's no such thing as "measurable good" until you have a moral system to tell you what "good" is.
quote:"2. Please note the difference between saying "I hate this" and "I hate THEM". "
The distinction is meaningless in the context of an action that a person engages in as a central part of their life.
Well, I disagree on that too. I think the difference is absolutely essential to issues of right and wrong, and I try to live my life accordingly so my experience backs up that belief. (But perhaps that is just a Christian perspective.)
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
From this Christian's perspective, "I don't hate them, but I am going to legislate against them anyway" rings a bit hollow.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are- but the axiomatic base of any reasonable moral system does not contain complex propositions like 'gay marriage is wrong'. So suggest reasonable axioms that would lead to this conclusion.
I'd think a moral system could include any axioms, whether complicated or not. Weren't most of the oldest moral systems just a list of things you couldn't do?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But, if you DO think they are arbitrary, you've got to at least admit that utility is arbitrary too. After all, there's no such thing as "measurable good" until you have a moral system to tell you what "good" is. "
Sure, utility is arbitrary. But we can at least find out whether something promotes utility, and adjust our actions accordingly. The arbitrariness can put itself into a "reality" context.
On the other hand, "God told me so," or "It seperates us from our soul," or "there's a universal dictum against it," can be used to justify ANY action, and there's no possible argument against the statement.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres, saying something is wrong, regardless of utilitarian outcome, is saying "I hate this."
Nonsense. There are things I think that are wrong that I actually quite like. Wrong of me to like them, true, but I do, and they are. I can think something is wrong without hating it. You've just decided to redefine the word "wrong" for your own uses and think we all have to use it that way. Hmm, that sounds like a familiar strategy, actually.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Well, I disagree on that too. I think the difference is absolutely essential to issues of right and wrong, and I try to live my life accordingly so my experience backs up that belief. (But perhaps that is just a Christian perspective.) "
The statements "I hate teachers," and "I hate the act of teaching," have no difference to people who find that they must teach to be happy. The statements "I hate cops," and "I hate the action of enforcing laws," are meaningless to people who see themselves as serving a great good by becoming police officers.
There's a lot of room between "I hate the action," and "I hate the person performing the action," but the distance becomes infintisimally small when we're talking about an action that someone needs/wants as a major component of their life.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Not all moral systems are based solely on uncontroversial axioms. Some have very controversial axioms - like "the ends justify the means".
It's possible to have a moral system where one of the fundamental axioms is "Sex is a sacred thing to be done between a man and a woman only for the purpose of having children."
What moral system are you thinking of where 'the ends justify the means' is an axiom?
You can choose whatever axioms you like, but it is pretty obvious why complex, specific axioms like "sex is a sacred thing to be done between a man and a woman only for the purpose of having children" don't make good axioms.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
