Ok so how strong is your commitment to free speech

[Darth Rotor]

I'm all for keeping pedophilia illegal, but understanding the basics of why or how it happens is still useful.

I agree with that position.

DR

 

[RandFan]

What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter what the psychology is. We can decide, as a society, that we don't care why or how someone feels attraction for children, we're just not going to allow it. It may not be scientific, or even fair, but it doesn't have to be.

Saying something is "purely cultural" doesn't make it wrong. Our culture is against pedophilia. Others were not. We don't have to prove ourselves right, with science or argument or even reason. We make our culture the way we want it.

I've always been a big fan Monkey so I had to stew on this awhile.

Morality is relative so therefore I can, to an extent, agree that "purely cultural" doesn't make something wrong. If a culture truly believes that slavery is moral then slavery would be moral for that culture. As it was for past civilizations.

The problem is that over time collective human consciousness gains the understanding that the ultimate goals of humans (happiness, security, prosperity, etc.) are not realized through some conventions like slavery. In the end slavery is irrational in the overall scheme of things and tends to cause division in society as more and more citizens question the need for slavery and begin to empathize with slaves.

It has been argued that given enough time and advancement societies will likely adopt certain moral conventions like prohibition of murder, rape, robbery, slavery etc.

In that case it would I would argue that it would be irrational for such a society with the understanding of western societies to suddenly adopt something like slavery.

I think pedophilia is also a behavior that is likely to be seen more and more as immoral for any evolving society. I think the reasons for this are diverse but understandable. Pedophilia offers no practical advantage to a society and there is the potential for harm. A child who contacts a sexually transmitted disease is a less fit member of the group.

Though morality isn't purely based on reason it is ultimately shaped largely by it. I think it can be reasonably argued that primitive cultures were shaped more by innate sense and modern culture a bit more by reason.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I hate to be cynical, but I think it's more likely that we come up with rational reasons to feel the way we do than to feel the way we do for rational reasons.

 

[RandFan]

I hate to be cynical, but I think it's more likely that we come up with rational reasons to feel the way we do than to feel the way we do for rational reasons.

I would not at all reject out of hand the argument for post hoc reasoning for many of our behaviors. That said, I think there is a problem with such a blanket indictment especially as it relates to modern moral theory. Morality seems to be evolving toward respect for life and liberty and not away from it.

If we assume that some moral strategies are better at achieving common goals than others then it seems to reason that we are capable of pushing the moral zeitgeist rather than simply accepting whatever it is.

Questions:

1. Why did the American Framers seek a radical constitution that put the rights of the individual above the rights of government? In other words, why did they limit their own power?
2. Why did whites fight for and even die for the rights of blacks?
3. Why did men fight for the rights of women?
4. Why did civil rights succeed at all?
5. Why are minorities in positions of power today?
6. Why have modern civilizations rejected moralities of the past?

The notion that all of our reason is simply post hoc does not square with reality, IMO. The majority was at one time against modern moral conventions. The change in these conventions did not simply happen. They often were fought for. The majority only came to see that the minority position was more rational. More reasonable.

Unless of course you believe that causing pain or limiting the rights of another to another is as rational as it is not.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I disagree. We're not becoming more rational so much as we're becoming nicer. And as nicer people, it's natural for us to justify everything reasonably when we can, and be very uncomfortable with things that are reasonable but nasty.

 

[RandFan]

I disagree. We're not becoming more rational so much as we're becoming nicer. And as nicer people, it's natural for us to justify everything reasonably when we can, and be very uncomfortable with things that are reasonable but nasty.

I'm not at all sure how this follows. I don't know how this answers the questions I pose.

1. What does being nice have to do with risking one's life to register voters in the south?
2. What does being nice have to do with standing up to bigotry and intolerance?
3. Perhaps most importantly, why are we becoming more nice? This seems to raise a question in and of itself that is simply asserted with no thought given to the assumption.

I'm curious, can you make a pro-slavery argument is as rational as an anti-slavery position? We'll leave out appeals to emotion or any special pleading.

 

[UserGoogol]

I don't think it's really possible to have an objective definition of disease. Disease inherently involves making normative judgments. If an abnormality is good or neutral, we don't call it a disease, and if an abnormality is bad (and has a cause which can be traced to something biological) we do. Scientists can determine whether pedophilia has a biological cause, but whether pedophilia is "wrong" is on the borderlines of science.

Personally, I think pedophilia has a bad rap. Pedophiles and child molesters are completely different (although overlapping) groups. To be a pedophile merely means you find something sexually arousing that most people do not find arousing. Sometimes that can motivate people to molest, and that is very bad, but the arousal itself does not harm anyone. It's hard to get data on the subject because pedophiles who don't molest children are presumably well hidden, but I do suspect that most pedophiles don't molest children.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm curious, can you make a pro-slavery argument is as rational as an anti-slavery position? We'll leave out appeals to emotion or any special pleading.

If it were economically feasible, slavery would still be around.

Here's a rational argument for slavery: instead of imprisioning criminals, set them to unpaid labor doing the manual work society needs done. It would save money on prisons, as well as getting work done for free. They're going to be punished anyway, it might as well be a punishment that benefits society rather than costing it.

 

[RandFan]

If it were economically feasible, slavery would still be around.

You will forgive me if I'm wrong but this seems like the beginning of a rational argument against slavery, right? Now this raises another question. Why did slavery survive for so long? Oh, and BTW, slavery still exists today? Why?

Here's a rational argument for slavery: instead of imprisoning criminals, set them to unpaid labor doing the manual work society needs done. It would save money on prisons, as well as getting work done for free. They're going to be punished anyway, it might as well be a punishment that benefits society rather than costing it.

I'm confused as to how this is slavery? It doesn't fit my definition.

Slaves are people who are owned and controlled by others in a way that they have almost no rights or freedom of movement and are not paid for their labour, aside from food, clothing and shelter needed for basic subsistence.

Since all prisoners fit this definition it seems reasonable that incarceration is not usually thought of as slavery.

• Incarceration is punishment.
• Slavery is so controlling individuals through no fault of their own.

Do you have a different definition?

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm not at all sure how this follows. I don't know how this answers the questions I pose.

1. What does being nice have to do with risking one's life to register voters in the south?
2. What does being nice have to do with standing up to bigotry and intolerance?
3. Perhaps most importantly, why are we becoming more nice? This seems to raise a question in and of itself that is simply asserted with no thought given to the assumption.

I'm curious, can you make a pro-slavery argument is as rational as an anti-slavery position? We'll leave out appeals to emotion or any special pleading.

1. Being concerned for the rights of others seems pretty nice to me. Niceness is when you treat other people well.
2. See above. If you have the abstract principle that people deserve to not be bigoted against or intolerated, and you act on that principle, you are being nice.
3. Why? Because we're becoming more aware that's its nice to be nice, really. The world is what we make of it, and if we want it nice we have to be nice ourselves. Maybe we're evolving to a higher state through sheer niceness. It feels good to be nice, and feeling good seems to be an instinctive nudge down a behavioral path.

Or maybe we're just getting lazier. After a certain point of technological development, it takes more energy to be nasty than to be nice. If I were a caveman and had to kill a mammoth to eat, I wouldn't share my food so much. Since I'm a business analyst who can phone up a pizza whenever I want it, I don't mind letting my roommate eat half.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You will forgive me if I'm wrong but this seems like the beginning of a rational argument against slavery, right?

It can go either way. It's a simple statement. Which way you decide to use it depends not on rationality, but on your feelings.

Now this raises another question. Why did slavery survive for so long?

Lots of reasons. Economic necessity in some cases, economic benefit in others. Sometimes slavery was a convenient way to keep a caste in power, sometimes it was a political thing. I'd say usually it was because people didn't know any better, and weren't very nice.

Oh, and BTW, slavery still exists today? Why?

I know. It's because not everyone is nice, and not-nice people believe they are receiving benefits from enslaving others.

I'm confused as to how this is slavery? It doesn't fit my definition.

Since all prisoners fit this definition it seems reasonable that incarceration is not usually thought of as slavery.

• Incarceration is punishment.
• Slavery is so controlling individuals through no fault of their own.

Do you have a different definition?

I don't see that slavery has to be "through no fault of their own". Sometimes that's been the case. Other times it hasn't. The Romans enslaved criminals frequently. The Greeks did it to prisoners of war, including noncombatant civilians. Slavery is when you are made to work for others against your will, and have fewer rights than they. Notice I said "fewer", and not "no". In the ancient world, slaves did have some rights. Which just makes the ancients even odder.

 

[RandFan]

1. Being concerned for the rights of others seems pretty nice to me. Niceness is when you treat other people well.
2. See above. If you have the abstract principle that people deserve to not be bigoted against or intolerated, and you act on that principle, you are being nice.
3. Why? Because we're becoming more aware that's its nice to be nice, really. The world is what we make of it, and if we want it nice we have to be nice ourselves. Maybe we're evolving to a higher state through sheer niceness. It feels good to be nice, and feeling good seems to be an instinctive nudge down a behavioral path.

1. Sure, being concerned for others is being nice. It isn't only being nice. That's the part you are missing. There is far more to it. So the question remains, how does being nice explain people risking their lives for others? Does not reason enter into it?
2. You are stating a conclusion drawn from inference all the while rejecting reason. This doesn't make sense. It takes reason to conclude that standing up to intolerance and the majority is an appropriate course of action.
3. Again, you are rejecting reason while making an argument that it is in our best interest to be nice. How is this not reason?

TM: #3 is the classical utilitarian argument for morality.

• It is more reasonable than not to behave in a way that is in our best interest.
• It is in our best interest to be nice to others.

I'm afraid that you are making my argument.

Or maybe we're just getting lazier. After a certain point of technological development, it takes more energy to be nasty than to be nice.

Given all of the effort to march, picket, face dogs and fire houses this just doesn't make sense. Risking one's life to register voters in the south is not a mark of laziness.

If I were a caveman and had to kill a mammoth to eat, I wouldn't share my food so much. Since I'm a business analyst who can phone up a pizza whenever I want it, I don't mind letting my roommate eat half.

Not an impressive argument. My roommate and I would fight over the water bill and who owned the beer in the fridge. Watching people's court it seems that I was not at all alone.

 

[TragicMonkey]

[*]Sure, being concerned for others is being nice. It isn't only being nice. That's the part you are missing. There is far more to it. So the question remains, how does being nice explain people risking their lives for others? Does not reason enter into it?

Reason tells them how to go about being nice, but it doesn't tell them to be nice in the first place.

[*]You are stating a conclusion drawn from inference all the while rejecting reason. This doesn't make sense. It takes reason to conclude that standing up to intolerance and the majority is an appropriate course of action.

No, it takes niceness to decide that something ought or ought not to be done, then reason is used to formulate a plan. Reason tells you how to do something, not how to be. And if reason gives you a plan that violates your niceness (or naughtiness), you reject it. (Or not, in which case you're going to feel bad...or not.)

[*]Again, you are rejecting reason while making an argument that it is in our best interest to be nice. How is this not reason?[/LIST]

It may be in our best interest sometimes, but surely not all the time. Unless you count being nice as an interest, and evaluate it higher than others.

Good and evil are not rational concepts. Human beings are not entirely rational beings. We can use reason, but we also use other things.

TM: #3 is the classical utilitarian argument for morality.

And it's also applied after the fact. Good is its own goal, for no other reason than it is good. There is no rational argument before that, although we can dream up millions of them to justify it afterwards. It's more like taste than like logic. I'm nice. I like chocolate. I don't like shrimp. Are any of those three things the result of rational thought?

• It is more reasonable than not to behave in a way that is in our best interest.
• It is in our best interest to be nice to others.

It's not necessarily reasonable to behave in a way that is in our best interest. What is the rational justification for continuing to live? Is it in our best interests to continue existing?

And it's not always in our best interests to be nice to others. Not when you can derive more benefit from being naughty. One place left in the lifeboat--what's the best interest? Whose best interest is it? Is it nice or naughty to take that place over another?

I'm afraid that you are making my argument.

Given all of the effort to march, picket, face dogs and fire houses this just doesn't make sense. Risking one's life to register voters in the south is not a mark of laziness.

Not an impressive argument. My roommate and I would fight over the water bill and who owned the beer in the fridge. Watching people's court it seems that I was not at all alone.

I'm afraid we can't communicate. You've decided that reason is good, therefore good must arise from reason. It's a nice thought, but life doesn't seem to work that way. The path of maximum good is not always the path of maximum benefit. Good is quite frequently self-destructive and irrational.

eta: damn tags. quotes and lists do not mix well.

 

[DanishDynamite]

How nice to see TragicMonkey engaged in real debate.

Just so I understand your view completely, are you against the painting, drawing or pixilation of scenes which look as if an adult is having sex with a child? Do you feel such depictions should be out-lawed? In general? Even at home? Or perhaps illegal for distribution?

Why would you feel this way, if so?

How do you feel about splatter movies?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Just so I understand your view completely, are you against the painting, drawing or pixilation of scenes which look as if an adult is having sex with a child?

I wouldn't care for them, but as long as nobody a) was harmed, and b) won't be harmed as a result, I don't mind if other people do such things.

Do you feel such depictions should be out-lawed? In general? Even at home? Or perhaps illegal for distribution?

No, but I think they should be subject to viewing restrictions similar to regular pornography. Not on billboards or broadcast television in mid afternoon, in other words.

Why would you feel this way, if so?

Because it's nasty and distasteful. Two personal opinions, with no rational basis whatsoever. Possibly because of my culture, meaning that I might feel differently had I been born into another culture or time.

How do you feel about splatter movies?

I don't find gore entertaining, unless it's for humor. I don't find it particularly scary, either. Again, just a personal preference. If other people like that kind of thing, I don't care. As long as nobody's really getting hurt.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I wouldn't care for them, but as long as nobody a) was harmed, and b) won't be harmed as a result, I don't mind if other people do such things.

Uh..."won't be harmed"? Are you OK with such depictions being legal or are you not?

No, but I think they should be subject to viewing restrictions similar to regular pornography. Not on billboards or broadcast television in mid afternoon, in other words.

OK.

Because it's nasty and distasteful. Two personal opinions, with no rational basis whatsoever. Possibly because of my culture, meaning that I might feel differently had I been born into another culture or time.

OK.

I don't find gore entertaining, unless it's for humor. I don't find it particularly scary, either. Again, just a personal preference. If other people like that kind of thing, I don't care. As long as nobody's really getting hurt.

Would you feel that depictions of people being eviscerated and splattered across the screen should likewise be subject to the same rules you outlined for the depictions of pedophilia?

 

[RandFan]

Reason tells them how to go about being nice, but it doesn't tell them to be nice in the first place.

No, it takes niceness to decide that something ought or ought not to be done, then reason is used to formulate a plan. Reason tells you how to do something, not how to be. And if reason gives you a plan that violates your niceness (or naughtiness), you reject it. (Or not, in which case you're going to feel bad...or not.)

It may be in our best interest sometimes, but surely not all the time. Unless you count being nice as an interest, and evaluate it higher than others.

Reason does tell them to be nice in the first place. You made the argument yourself. It's in our best interest to be nice.

Good and evil are not rational concepts. Human beings are not entirely rational beings. We can use reason, but we also use other things.

This misses the point. Reason tells us that the best strategy for our best interest is morality.

This gets back to the framers of the American constitution. Why did they choose the strategy that they did? They had many options. They could have chosen to keep power to themselves. Instead they chose a strategy that would get them most closely to their goals.

And it's also applied after the fact.

I have to strenuously disagree. The Bill of Rights was not applied after the fact. The American constitution broke new ground. It was reasoned into existence.

Good is its own goal, for no other reason than it is good.

A tautology but I understand the sentiment.

I think that we would both agree that "good", from a purely evolutionary view point, is A.) Arbitrary and B.) Relative. Right?

For instance: There are species of birds and other animals who live in environment were there is insufficient resourses for two offspring to survive and so the stronger sibling kills the other. Based on Dawkin's The Selfish Gene, morality is a function of genetic fitness.

There is no rational argument before that, although we can dream up millions of them to justify it afterwards.

Actually, there are rational arguments why humans have a sense of morality and why some moral values are more likely than others. Again, I refer to Dawkin's Selfish Gene.

The question is whether or not we can derive an ought from an is. I don't think so but there is some rather interesting controversy on this subject. For the purpose of this discussion let's assume that we can't, or at least shouldn't, derive an ought from an is. Fair enough?

It's more like taste than like logic. I'm nice. I like chocolate. I don't like shrimp. Are any of those three things the result of rational thought?

No argument. Each individuals innate moral feelings are subjective. So again, we have common ground.

1. Innate moral feelings are, from a purely evolutionary point of view, both arbitrary and relative.
2. We cannot derive an ought from an is.
3. Moral sense is subjective and can't be rationalized.

Are we in agreement? Hopefully so.

It's not necessarily reasonable to behave in a way that is in our best interest.

With all due respect monkey, I think this is nonsensical. At least, depending on how you define best interest.

1. What is the rational justification for continuing to live?
2. Is it in our best interests to continue existing?

1. It could be any number of things.
2. Only if you have a rational justification for living. If you don't then no. If you do then yes.

And it's not always in our best interests to be nice to others. Not when you can derive more benefit from being naughty. One place left in the lifeboat--what's the best interest? Whose best interest is it? Is it nice or naughty to take that place over another?

And how do we answer these questions? Is it purely arbitrary? Is there some kind of math that humans perform in such situations?

Dawkins says yes.

• Our genes are typically more important to us than a stranger's so the stranger typically goes out the boat.
• Our children's genes are more important to us than our own so we are typically more likely to sacrifice ourselves for our children.

These equations are performed subconsciously so any justification at this point could very well be pro-hoc as you say.

I'm afraid we can't communicate. You've decided that reason is good, therefore good must arise from reason.

No. Not at all. I don't believe this. I'm sorry you have come to this conclusion. I do not believe this.

Morality is a complex system of legal and ethical behavior based on evolving principles. These principles are the result of an interplay of social interaction, social pressures and reason. What I'm saying is that morality evolves. It becomes better and better at meeting the most needs and desires of the most people due in part to evolutionary principles and reason.

This is perhaps best exemplified by the framers of the American Constitution. They each had their sense of morality, understanding of history, goals and reason. It was this combination of phenomenon that lead to a ground breaking experiment based in part on the Greek Enlightenment and their experiments that in turn lead to many other similar experiments.

It's a nice thought, but life doesn't seem to work that way. The path of maximum good is not always the path of maximum benefit. Good is quite frequently self-destructive and irrational.

Yes, but this misses the point.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Uh..."won't be harmed"? Are you OK with such depictions being legal or are you not?

I would have thought it self-evident that if nobody was being harmed, it should be legal.

Would you feel that depictions of people being eviscerated and splattered across the screen should likewise be subject to the same rules you outlined for the depictions of pedophilia?

Just about. Context is important. I'd think it would be in the interests of gore-merchants to not overpublicize anyway, as it would remove the shock value of their wares. Which lately seem to be tremendously overplayed. I expect things'll shift back away from constant dismemberment soon because it's getting old.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I can't keep up with you, RandFan. I can only say that I don't think morality has anything to do with "interplay of social interaction, social pressures and reason". Morality is aiming for the good. The real good, the capital G Good, which isn't subject to change although our perceptions of it do. It's an absolute. Which I realize is an inflammatory statement here, but there it is. You can reason your way towards it, but you can't reason why it is what it is, and you can't reason something that isn't good into being good.

And no, I can't justify that rationally--obviously, since I'm claiming it's irrational. Or rather, a-rational. It's just my opinion.

 

[RandFan]

I can't keep up with you, RandFan. I can only say that I don't think morality has anything to do with "interplay of social interaction, social pressures and reason". Morality is aiming for the good. The real good, the capital G Good, which isn't subject to change although our perceptions of it do. It's an absolute. Which I realize is an inflammatory statement here, but there it is. You can reason your way towards it, but you can't reason why it is what it is, and you can't reason something that isn't good into being good.

And no, I can't justify that rationally--obviously, since I'm claiming it's irrational. Or rather, a-rational. It's just my opinion.

You certainly don't need to "keep up with me". I assure you that I respect your opinion and I don't assume that your declining to respond to the many points made, to prove anything whatsoever.

We simply disagree. I honestly think though that the weight of science and philosophical views about morality largely are on my side. I've tried to make reasoned arguments. In the end that is all we can do.

I thought I understood your position but your last post made it clear that I have not. I don't understand your view of morality, your take on absolute morality or even what an absolute morality is. What I do find odd is that your last post seems at odds with your earlier posts. Note I said seems and I would suppose that given time you could reconcile the inconstancies.

I have no idea what an absolute "good" is or where one would find such a beast (outside of religion that is). How does one reconcile two incompatible moralities that are both absolute "good"? Logic would dictate that such a concept is impossible. Not simply a-rational but actually irrational. Again, your earlier posts seem to argue against such absolutes.

So, I'm really not certain where you stand. That's fine. I'll keep an open mind and continue with my studies. This is a subject I've been focusing on for a few years now. Debating here helps me to focus my POV.

Thanks,

RandFan