Better the illusions that exalt us ......

[Robin]

Here is Kant's own wording of the Humanity formulation of the Categorical Imperative:

So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in
every case as an end withal, never as means only.

 

[Herzblut]

From your description it seems as though she is very much the subject of his attentions.

It's about acts, not intentions.

What would be the difference from another nurse who satisfied his monetary needs rather than his sexual needs, in other words who accepted a salary for looking after her? Would that person be equally blameworthy? What would be the difference?

Looking after a person, at high costs, means to regard this person as highly valuable who deserves this effort. To assume this treats the person merely as an object of something, is irrational.

What about if I take a taxi, but really do not care which particular driver takes me? Am I therefore as blameworthy as the male nurse in your example?

Depends how you behave. For instance, if you don't fulfill the contract you have agreed upon with the driver by jumping out of the cab not paying him, you are to blame.

And given that your position now rests on a hasty rewording of a factually disputed Wikipedia article with no citations, can you give any evidence that Kant ever said this nonsense in the first place?

Kant has not written nonsense. But he has written in German, if you want a link to the original German text, you're welcome.

 

[Herzblut]

Here is Kant's own wording of the Humanity formulation of the Categorical Imperative:

So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in
every case as an end withal, never as means only.

This is one of Kant's different formulations. I think, he developed five or six.

And, of course, this is not Kant's own wording because Kant used German words.

 

[articulett]

The first paragrah of this wikipedia-entry and a perceived hostility from parts of the forum when this topic comes up, that seemed to indicate that people found even the idea objectionable. It is hardly conclusive, and I don't think that I can convince you if i start quote-mineing through the whole forum. It isn't worth the effort to verify it, so i don't insist on it's truthfullness. I take it as a working-hypothesis and will take care to place disclaimers to avoid being frequently accused of being a biased , double-standards-applying apologist for whatever.

If you really want to avoid those things I suggest you don't insult broad swaths of people as you did in your opening paragraph. Moreover, state your opinion as an opinion and not as a fact... plus be willing to change it should the evidence warrant it... and provide evidence... listen to those who tell you that you are sounding like you have a bias... it's not the "r-word"-- it's your promotion of a stereotype and then tsk-tsking people for not wanting to hear your advice that comes from your strawman stereotype. Listen and respond to others advice and opinions the way you want your responded to. You are new here... you don't know the people here... and yet you've taken it upon yourself to malign a whole group of people and show an utter unwillingness to examine whether your view is based on a bias you have. You are so sure it's others... or the "r-word"-- but we are telling you what it is. Why can't you hear us? Why do you need to believe it's something it's not. If you were amongst those who agreed with your viewpoint and I came in and told them what namby pamby biased apologists I thought they were and then acted offended when they didn't take it well... I suspect you'd react exactly like those you criticize. You joined a group and started giving advice and criticism based on your preconceived bias. You insult others so that you don't have to examine whether this is true. You want to imagine your intent was something else... but if it was something else-- you haven't convinced this skeptic as to what it was.

Instead of blaming others... try apologizing for your egregious mischaracterization of JREF and examine the biases that lead you to make it.

 

[Robin]

Are you sure this isn't a non-sequitur? He is talking about his own bedrock-faith reflecting his attitude. This in itself does not imply that the 'new atheists' attitude, as described in the article reflects a negation of his faith.

Yes, I am sure it is not a non-sequitur. He is clearly giving this as a reason as to why he will not join the "new atheists". It would therefore make no sense if he did not regard this as a point of difference between himself and them.

The first paragrah of this wikipedia-entry and a perceived hostility from parts of the forum when this topic comes up, that seemed to indicate that people found even the idea objectionable. It is hardly conclusive, and I don't think that I can convince you if i start quote-mineing through the whole forum.

You could simply explain how it is possible for there to be a "strong prohibition (or ban)" on a subject I and others spend a lot of time arguing.

How is it that I never came up against this strong prohibition or ban myself?

Are you sure you understand the difference between a taboo and a disagreement?

 

[blauregen]

Personally I do see that there are certain things with religion that could indeed be said to beneficial (at least for some individuals, I am not so sure about if it is for society as a whole). The thing is that all the things I have seen, so far, being mentioned as a good thing about religion, are such things that can be provided by other things than religion! There doesn't seem to be any good things about religion that is unique to religion only! And so, for me, in the light of all the bad things religion brings (a few of which I suspect might actually be unique to religion) there is no reason to defend religion on the grounds that there are some good things about it.

I agree. All religions I am aware of have a strong moralphilosophic component, that could be provided by philosophy alone.

A paternal figure like the one provided in abrahamic religions could be provided by a strong leader figure as well. A possible example of this would be Mao Zedong who actually spawned a personality cult.

Spiritual searching can be done solitary, although I think a community of likeminded people makes it easier.

A community with a strong ideological identification to provide it's members with a common goal and a codified set of rules and practices could be completely secular. The communist party of the soviet union would be an example for this.

I am just not sure whether this would actually be an improvement. What kind of replacements do you have in mind?

 

[Herzblut]

The problem is that anyone halfway intelligent can see the harm involved, or at the very least would be familiar with the basic facts of child development and sexual molestation. There is no reason to "assume" that there is no harm, because there is clear evidence of harm from any amount of case studies.

Wrong.

For an amount of cases there is evidence for no harm:

...we examined studies that used national probability samples, because these samples provide the best available estimate of population characteristics. Our review does not support the prevailing viewpoint. The self-reported effects data imply that only a small proportion of persons with CSA experiences are permanently harmed and that a substantially greater proportion of females than males perceive harm from these experiences.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_n3_v34/ai_20444907/pg_26?tag=artBody;col1

The moral agent in our case, the pedophile consequentialist, might therefore assume his relation to a 9 yro child will cause no lasting harm, but only happiness. His own. He might be supporting his view by memorizing the other relations he had without causing recognizable harm. His behaviour is therefore morally justified by the imperative of consequentialism.

Another moral agent, a pedophile deontologist, would probably recognize this behaviour as bad.

Generally, judging an act by its consequenses is often difficult, because those consequenses are not known. Hence, Consequentialism cannot be a universal ethical framework.

 

[blauregen]

Yes, I am sure it is not a non-sequitur. He is clearly giving this as a reason as to why he will not join the "new atheists". It would therefore make no sense if he did not regard this as a point of difference between himself and them.

Actually, I think he gives that he wants to 'continue to have respectful conversations even about things we find ridiculous' as a reason that he will not join the 'new atheists' and states that this reflects his 'bedrock-faith'. The 'new atheists' still could derive their unrelenting stance as described in this article from a different reasoning than from a negation of said faith.

You could simply explain how it is possible for there to be a "strong prohibition (or ban)" on a subject I and others spend a lot of time arguing.

How is it that I never came up against this strong prohibition or ban myself?

*Sigh* Ok, it is not a taboo, but merely an emotionally loaded topic.

 

[Robin]

It's about acts, not intentions.

How does that relate to what I said?

Looking after a person, at high costs, means to regard this person as highly valuable who deserves this effort. To assume this treats the person merely as an object of something, is irrational.

It seems that your male nurse is looking after at an even higher cost that normal nurses, and so would regard her as even more valuable.

Depends how you behave. For instance, if you don't fulfill the contract you have agreed upon with the driver by jumping out of the cab not paying him, you are to blame.

Why does that make a difference? After all I am using the driver as a means to an end in each case and not as an end in himself.

Kant has not written nonsense. But he has written in German, if you want a link to the original German text, you're welcome.

Link in German if you like, if you think it makes sense in German.

 

[Herzblut]

How does that relate to what I said?

You said nothing about an act, but an intention.

It seems that your male nurse is looking after at an even higher cost that normal nurses, and so would regard her as even more valuable.

Correct. This is a morally desirable behaviour. Not so his violational acts, which are inherently bad.

Why does that make a difference? After all I am using the driver as a means to an end in each case and not as an end in himself.

You are using him as a means to an end in any case, that's correct. Everybody does this all the time. When you enter the cab you have normally agreed to a contract with another rational being, the driver. You therebye accept he's indeed a subject who owns certain individual rights. Objects (hammers, cars, bottles, animals) don't own any right. By totally disregarding your contract and ignoring his right you treat the driver as a mere object of your transportation request.

This is rational. Kant wants you to use your rationality, sapere aude. Most people do this, and don't act like ignorant idiots.

Link in German if you like, if you think it makes sense in German.

It also makes sense in English for me. It makes sense for a trillian other people. Hence, it makes sense. If it does not make sense for you personally, you might want to check the possibility that you are either ignorant or incompetent. In the latter case, learning can probably help.

 

[-Fran-]

I agree. All religions I am aware of have a strong moralphilosophic component, that could be provided by philosophy alone.

Yes

A paternal figure like the one provided in abrahamic religions could be provided by a strong leader figure as well. A possible example of this would be Mao Zedong who actually spawned a personality cult.

I don't see an abrahamic paternal figure as one of the good things with religion.

Spiritual searching can be done solitary, although I think a community of likeminded people makes it easier.

What's the point here? That a community of likeminded people can't be found outside of religion?

A community with a strong ideological identification to provide it's members with a common goal and a codified set of rules and practices could be completely secular. The communist party of the soviet union would be an example for this.

I don't quite get your point here either?? "A community with a strong ideological identification to provide it's members with a common goal and a codified set of rules and practices" is a good thing within religion, but as soon as it is a secular version it runs the risk of turning into Soviet Union?

I am just not sure whether this would actually be an improvement. What kind of replacements do you have in mind?

I never mentioned what the "good things" were and so I have no "replacements in mind". And my point was not to list the few good things about religion and then suggest secular replacements. My point was that if I say that I don't much care for religion, and someone wants to reply to that with defending religion by mentioning something good about it. I would answer one of two things 1) That IS not a good thing in my mind, or 2) That IS good but religion is not required for us to get that/achieve that/feel that.

I just said that many people mention things about religion that they think are good things. Some of these things they mention are not good things in my mind. But even those things that I must agree can be good can still be had in other ways - what good things can be had solely through religion and in no other way?

Personally I don't think it is a good thing to search for a supernatural father figure in the first place, for example, so why would I think that that would be one of those good things about religion? And so why would I then think it would be good to replace that with a personality cult as with Mao?

 

[Robin]

Actually, I think he gives that he wants to 'continue to have respectful conversations even about things we find ridiculous' as a reason that he will not join the 'new atheists' and states that this reflects his 'bedrock-faith'.

My emphasis.

Incidentally I am touched by his greater faith that he can hold a respectful conversation with people who's deepest beliefs he calls 'ridiculous'. An entirely new and unfamiliar usage of the word 'respectful'.

*Sigh* Ok, it is not a taboo, but merely an emotionally loaded topic.

You seriously don't think that this is an important distinction?

It is an emotionally loaded topic for certain people on both sides of the debate, and for other of us it is simply a matter for debate. The same could be said of a majority of topics on just about any forum - would it be any less emotionally loaded on a Christian forum?

If we refrained from debate on the basis that certain subjects were emotionally loaded to certain people then there would be no such thing as an internet forum.

 

[Robin]

You said nothing about an act, but an intention.

I didn't even use the word "intention".

Correct. This is a morally desirable behaviour. Not so his violational acts, which are inherently bad.

I don't think you understood what I said. The higher price he extracts is sex. The other nurses merely accept money in exchange for their care, he accepts money and sex and therefore, according to you, regards her as being more valuable than the other nurses do. So it must be, according to you, morally desirable behaviour. So tell me, why do you call his acts 'violational' if he is, according to you, doing no harm?

You are using him as a means to an end in any case, that's correct. Everybody does this all the time. When you enter the cab you have normally agreed to a contract with another rational being, the driver. You therebye accept he's indeed a subject who owns certain rights. Objects (hammers, cars, bottles, animals) don't own any right. By totally disregarding your contract you treat the driver as a mere object of your transportation request.

That does not follow at all. In either case I have entered into a contract with a rational being. In one case I honour the contract with the rational being. In the other case I decide not to honour the contract with the rational being. I have treated him as a rational being in each case. So if I should not care a twig about consequences, or making him unhappy then there is no difference.

This is rational. Kant wants you to use your rationality, sapere aude. Most people do this, and don't act like ignorant idiots.

I would be using rationality in either case. If I could get away with not paying the taxi driver and I am not to care about consequences or resulting unhappiness then it is more rational not to honour my contract since that would leave me better off.

I also makes sense in English for me. It makes sense for a trillian other people.

Really? That many?

Hence, it makes sense. If it does not make sense for you personally, you might want to check the possibility that you are ignorant or incompetent. In the latter case, learning can probably help.

You appear to be making something of a dogs breakfast of explaining the position, so I have no evidence that you understand it in any language.

 

[blauregen]

I don't see an abrahamic paternal figure as one of the good things with religion.

Many people seem to derive a lot of comfort from the notion that there is a loving parental figure.

What's the point here? That a community of likeminded people can't be found outside of religion?

No, that organised religions provide an easy access to a group of likeminded people. You will find churches of various denominations in most towns.

I don't quite get your point here either?? "A community with a strong ideological identification to provide it's members with a common goal and a codified set of rules and practices" is a good thing within religion, but as soon as it is a secular version it runs the risk of turning into Soviet Union?

Again no. I only gave the communist party of the soviet union as an example. I fail to see though, what would be the advantage of a secular,ideological community over a religious community. Both would likely provide a set of codified rules and practices and both would try to enforce them. It could be that such a community is not necessary at all though. Most european countries run pretty well on secular principles without such a construct.

Personally I don't think it is a good thing to search for a supernatural father figure in the first place, for example, so why would I think that that would be one of those good things about religion? And so why would I then think it would be good to replace that with a personality cult as with Mao?

I don't think that it is good too. I don't consider it to be bad either. I merely recognize that abrahamic religions are very sucessful and that the veneration there is directed towards a parental figure. It seems plausible that this satisfies a need in a lot of people, independent of whether I think it is good or bad.

If this assumed need is real, then it seems plausible to me, that in the hypothetical absence of a deity, a substitute has to be found. One possibility that came to mind was a revered leader like for example Mao.

 

[blauregen]

My emphasis

Yes, I still don't follow your conclusion.

Incidentally I am touched by his greater faith that he can hold a respectful conversation with people who's deepest beliefs he calls 'ridiculous'. An entirely new and unfamiliar usage of the word 'respectful'.

He wants to have a respectful conversation with people who hold beliefs he finds ridiculous, even about said beliefs. It may be possible for him to respect a person despite ridiculous beliefs, for example because he values her integrity or her knowledge and experience or her generosity. I am pretty sure he would not call her beliefs ridiculous in respectful conversation but would avoid ridiculing her.

If we refrained from debate on the basis that certain subjects were emotionally loaded to certain people then there would be no such thing as an internet forum.

Principally yes. But in many groups there are topics that for entirely understandable reasons tend to evoke a defensive stance really fast. I wrapped them up under taboos for simplicities sake, although it is technically not correct, and the one on the JREF-Forum isn't 'Benefits of religion'.

 

[Herzblut]

I didn't even use the word "intention".

But I mistakenly thought you did.

I don't think you understood what I said. The higher price he extracts is sex. The other nurses merely accept money in exchange for their care, he accepts money and sex and therefore, according to you, regards her as being more valuable than the other nurses do.

Rubbish. Nurses don't "accept money" from a patient, they demand it from their employer. They don't demand anything from any patient in return for their service. Especially, they don't demand anything from a comatose patient. In contrast to our moral agent who demands sex from that patient and makes sex without her consent to his demand. Assuming that making sex without consent to a person uncapable to express consent would honour that person in any kind is irrational. It's ignorant idiocy.

So tell me, why do you call his acts 'violational' if he is, according to you, doing no harm?

He violates her human dignity, of which sexual self-determination is an important part.

That does not follow at all. In either case I have entered into a contract with a rational being. In one case I honour the contract with the rational being. In the other case I decide not to honour the contract with the rational being. I have treated him as a rational being in each case.

But you have not treated him as a subject who is entitled to a right and whose will to execute this right is obviously justified. Objects don't have any right and no will. That's how you treated him. This is all very rational reasoning.

I would be using rationality in either case. If I could get away with not paying the taxi driver and I am not to care about consequences or resulting unhappiness then it is more rational not to honour my contract since that would leave me better off.

But you would not use rationality on Kant's imperative.

Really? That many?

Enough to invalidate your bizzare assertion that Kant's crystal clear imperative made no sense. A few people on the fringe, like you, seem to think so. But who cares?

You appear to be making something of a dogs breakfast of explaining the position, so I have no evidence that you understand it in any language.

That's because ignorant idiocy doesn't deliver evidence.

 

[rocketdodger]

Herzblut, it has been two pages and you have still failed to answer my question:

If the sexual relationship between the male nurse and the comatose female patient doesn't result in any harm coming to her, or anyone else, then why is it wrong?

 

[Herzblut]

Herzblut, it has been two pages and you have still failed to answer my question:

If the sexual relationship between the male nurse and the comatose female patient doesn't result in any harm coming to her, or anyone else, then why is it wrong?

Sorry if I didn't answer directly to you. I think, my last post makes it clear. His acting is wrong because it is breaching her human dignity. He degrades her to a mere means to his sexual satisfaction.

Likewise, sex with a child is morally unacceptable because it is sex without mutual consent. A little kid is not able to reasonably grant or deny consent.

Violating the sexual self-dermination of a human being is regarded as severe crime in many countries. It's a criminal act with or without violation of the physical integrity of the victim. The latter is of course a crime as well and adds to the total guilt of the predator.

It is bizarre I have to explain obvious, self-evident facts.

 

[Robin]

Rubbish. Nurses don't "accept money" from a patient, they demand it from their employer. They don't demand anything from any patient in return for their service. Especially, they don't demand anything from a comatose patient.

I never said they did, I said the accept money in return for their services.

In contrast to our moral agent who demands sex from that patient and makes sex without her consent to his demand. Assuming that making sex without consent to a person uncapable to express consent would honour that person in any kind is irrational. It's ignorant idiocy.

I never even remotely suggested that it did honour that person. You were the one who suggested that nurses accepting money in return for medical care was a sign that they valued the person.

He violates her human dignity, of which sexual self-determination is an important part.

Of course he does. It is wrong, not because he treats her as a means, but because he harms her.

But you have not treated him as a subject who is entitled to a right and whose will to execute this right is obviously justified. Objects don't have any right and no will. That's how you treated him. This is all very rational reasoning.

You can't cheat an object and it is irrational for you to suggest that you can. So by the very act of cheating him I am acknowledging his humanity and his rationality.

I have treated him as a subject who is entitled to a right, and who's will to execute this right is totally justified. I have simply decided to thwart this right because you tell me I should not care a fig about consequences.

But you would not use rationality on Kant's imperative.

I have used nothing but.

Enough to invalidate your bizzare assertion that Kant's crystal clear imperative made no sense. A few people on the fringe, like you, seem to think so. But who cares?

Actually most people seem to think that consequences do matter.

That's because ignorant idiocy doesn't deliver evidence.

I think you had better re-read that exchange

 

[Robin]

Sorry if I didn't answer directly to you. I think, my last post makes it clear. His acting is wrong because it is breaching her human dignity. He degrades her to a mere means to his sexual satisfaction.

Likewise, sex with a child is morally unacceptable because it is sex without mutual consent. A little kid is not able to reasonably grant or deny consent.

Violating the sexual self-dermination of a human being is regarded as severe crime in many countries. It's a criminal act with or without violation of the physical integrity of the victim. The latter is of course a crime as well and adds to the total guilt of the predator.

It is bizarre I have to explain obvious, self-evident facts.

It was not obvious from your initial comments on the matter that you understood these self-evident facts.

But you are also denying the self-evident fact that child abuse causes a huge amount of suffering, both in the children, their families and the communities at large.