Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by Simo, Aug 4, 2016.
Oh my lord I feel as if I would have written this myself!
My goodness, twice in a row? Your luck with a D20 must be terrible. I'll give you a couple rolls for comprehension next time in an attempt to make sure you understand what I'm saying. I have insisted that your criticism of the ethical systems I have brought up is fundamentally flawed. For at least the second or third time: you are failing to criticise the ethical systems themselves. It's a little something like I'm not sure which I find least appealing: the thought that you're intentionally twisting my words to say something other than the meaning written right on its face, or the thought that you have put in so little effort that what you think I am saying is far from what I am saying (most glaring of these being the incident where you claimed I'm actually a Catholic or something; slow clap for that one, sugar plum).
And that is where we have our big divide. Both of the ethical systems that I purport are based on the idea that the basis of ethics is working out how to make man truly happy. For more information, take a look at this link: I hope asking for a click and maybe five to ten minutes of reading time isn't too much to ask. I think you'll like level 3 (also known as beatus). And, for the most part, these ethical systems will agree with the decisions of your atheistic humanist ethics - up to a point. One of these being (barrier) contraceptives, as we have been discussing.
Also, a little something I find amusing...
I talked with my ethics teacher about humanist ethics - mainly atheistic, specifically for the purpose of this exchange. He explained to me that in humanist ethics, there's a fundamental disbelief in even so much as the concept of a deity because free will and this deity (God more often than not) are mutually exclusive things; i.e. you either have the ability to act as you please exclusive or you have God. I just thought it was amusing that you described the purpose of ethics to be "controlling people's actions and motivations."
Discussed a similar topic in one of my first posts. Your turn to be a big boy and find the evidence.
Atchoo! Sniff - atchoo! Gah, sorry. A-a-a-atchoo! Sorry, what were you saying about Catholicism impeding our ability to change the world for the better? I caught a whiff of something terrible, sorry.
Sure, but to the extent that Aristotle's ethics agree with you.
Sincerely (and with a little love),
Are you hear to have an honest discussion, or just to be rude? Insulting people doesn't provide the impression that you have all the answers- it actually gives the impression that your perspectives are too flimsy to stand on reasoned argument alone, and need to be supplemented by vitriol.
Show your posts to your ethics teacher and ask them whether they think you are behaving appropriately.
Ethical systems need to be based on reason, not dogma, because It's been demonstrated that dogmatic attitudes frequently motivate deleterious behaviour that is not in the interest of human well-being.
I think your attitudes toward the ethical question about how to best manage sexual disease is as an example, because you offered advice that was consistent with Catholic religious dogma, instead of offering advice that was consistent with medical evidence.
This reminded me of the Catholic church's attempts to spread lies about condoms, to deter people from using them, because they're more interested in persuading people to adhere to dogma, than reviewing evidence in order to determine which course of action would be best to cultivate human well being.
This is the fundamental objection I have to Catholic ethics and any religious system of ethics, frankly; ethical truths are surmised to be provided by divine insight and to be beyond scrutiny- a 'false authority fallacy'. This means that even if evidence shows that an ethical position is harming human well being, that it is unlikely the position will be changed. :\
We should have confidence in ethical positions that can be demonstrated to be useful to us by evidence. Association with divinity or famous philosophers isn't enough to show that an ethical position is good, because evidence shows that even claims that appear divine, or sound rational, routinely turn out to be wrong.
You need to be able to interrogate real-world evidence, instead of simply thinking 'well, this doesn't sound like it matches my preconceived (and incorrect) ideas about what Aristotle believed, so I won't even consider the possibility I am wrong'.
read that sentence and look at your previous posts...see the contradiction?
it is based on reason, the purpose of sex is to create children, barrier contraceptives by their very nature prevent that hence why they are opposed to them...how is this a difficult logic to follow? is it based on science? no. it is however based on the intended purpose of the involved parts of the body. is that not reasonable or logical to assume an ethics system based in intended purpose and ultimate goals, that they would rather sex and reproductive anatomy be used for their intended purpose instead of pleasure by voiding that purpose via contraceptives?
Aurorans apologised earlier for being rude, so he knows that he's not behaving appropriately. You might think I'm just as bad, but that's an allegation of hypocrisy, rather than a contradiction. Even if I called Aurorans 'sugarplum' at the end of every post I would still be right to point out that such behaviour is rude and childish (although I would also be fairly expected to stop doing it myself)
The catholic position on contraceptives isn't reasonable because it's unreasonable to expect all humans only to have sex to get pregnant. People also have sex because they want to express their love for each other, or because they enjoy it.
Indeed, Aurorans must know this because he previously praised natural family planning methods whose aim is to have sex but avoid an unwanted pregnancy.
Barrier contraceptives can prevent a lot of human suffering, by stopping disease transmission, so sacrificing that opportunity in favour of the 'ultimate goal' of preventing all 'unnecessary' sex is silly; human life that is lost to infections like HIV is more important.
In short, clearly the catholic church has its priorities wrong. People should be concerned with human well being, rather than whether other people's sex is 'necessary'.
Do you think that's fair enough?
it's not about necessity, it's about intended purpose. in-line with intended purpose of the anatomy in question, it is a logical position regardless of other reasons it wouldn't be. criticize the position itself and the basis behind it (the ethics system), not the group of people who hold said position (the church or Aristotle).
The harm done by forbidding contraceptives to preserve the 'intended purpose' of sex exceeds the benefits- if indeed there are any.
I don't see why having sex for love, rather than for having children, is so terrible that we should allow avoidable HIV infections occur in an effort to prevent it.
If this is the kind of crazy conclusion that the catholic ethical system can reach, then it sorely needs to be changed.
Criticise the utility of ethical systems if you want to find out whether they are useful constructs to apply to the real world.
Even an ethical system that is self-consistent and (on the face of it) rational can turn out to be of no pragmatic value in real life.
For example, even if we were to conclude from a rational argument that any lie is always immoral, this ethical position wouldn't be useful, because we live in a world where some lies are unavoidable and may even be the moral choice, for example if a child's mother died an agonising death, it might be moral to tell the child they died a painless death, to spare their feelings.
Personally I regard these extreme positions such as 'it is always wrong to lie' as the results of arguments which are not perfectly rational, because they lack important nuances which should actually be part of rational argument. I guess it's a polite way of saying that they are 'simple-minded' rationalisations.
I'm not sure why you mention Aristotle, because he didn't actually think that contraception should be forbidden, so he doesn't even hold the position that Aurorans has been attributing to him. If you look Aristotle up you will find historical evidence that shows he advised people about how to make primitive forms of barrier contraceptive: Medieval contraception - Wikipedia
Because this broke the 10,000 character limit, here's part one.
Oh, I'm being rude? You didn't even say, "God bless you," when I sneezed! Tsk tsk. Where are your manners, young man?
...and neither does bringing up the same points over and over and over and over and over and over...
The following is taken from this.
"Surely a loving god, if one existed, could have made a world in which natural disasters didn't happen, in which viruses and cancers didn't exist, and in which human beings had limited free will (just as we have limited physical and mental capacities)?"
You call this "based on reason?" I am astounded. Also, St. Thomas Aquinas would thoroughly disagree.
...over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...
Let's inspect this. Definition of false authority fallacy: "As evidence to support a claim, information from a named authority is used outside of the individual's area of expertise, and thus the evidence is not necessarily credible. The authority can be misquoted by editing comments out of context or combining several quotes to fit the justification of the argument. Or the 'expert' may not be an expert at all. Sometimes there is a vague association between the authority and the topic in question, which is exploited to establish a perceived legitimacy." You know, given that God is defined as, more or less, "the ultimate good" or "everything that is good..."
Wow. That argument fell flat on its face. Must've hurt.
Fallowfox: Your ethics suck because they're based on dogma.
Fallowfox, just a few minutes later: I am going to state something on some authority and say it must be irrevocably true: "[See quote above.]"
Cue the laugh track! :^)
"integrate real-world evidence," perhaps? Can do.
Now I see the following has been removed, but thanks to a good friend on a Discord server, I have the original post:
I'll give this argument a lenient ruling: 2/10. Weak. As. Frig. Good job.
10/10, perfect autobiography. You're going to get raving reviews for this one, Fallow.
A succinct summary of Fallowfox's thoughts about everything I've said.
Part 2: Electric Boogaloo.
Ah, yes. I apologised for
and nothing else. I'm not sure how you think I'm being rude now, though. I'm only saying the nicest things about you, darling~
...over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...
Wow! You got something right! Colour me surprised. The purpose of sex (which, again, the Church says should only happen in a married couple) is both unitive and procreative. Sex does not require intent for procreation - however, it does require that you be open to the possibility of it.
Spoiler: My thoughts:
Spoiler: My thoughts:
And also now irrelevant.
Yes, you should try doing that.
Ah, yes. This is where the idea of morally right/wrong and morally permissible come into play. In all cases, lying is morally wrong, but in some cases, it may be morally permissible.
...over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...
Have a great evening, love.
Can I please ask a question to all you furs who have a faith?.....So this fooxy might be godless but....In your eyes does that mean I'm a bad person?....Because I don't follow your rules? That's the one thing I fear when meeting someone religious...I am so damn happy that you follow something that makes you happy and hopefully not fearful...Although I'm just so, so, scared that some religious furs judge me for not being like them and that makes me think that they think I'm a bad person....But I know deep down I'm not! I believe I'm the sweetest nicest fuzzball foox around! I'm bubbly and quirky, charming, talkative and do my best to help my friends, family and even strangers to the best of my ability.... Hopefully to all you religious furs I'm not a bad person....Thank you for taking the time to read this! Have a great day or night! The pawsome foox, out! :3
I think that, in accordance with your own post, you should regard contraceptives as morally permissible in order to prevent transmission of deadly disease.
(of course, I think that the idea that sex that isn't open to procreation is morally bad is a silly idea anyway; what about gay people?)
It's confusing that you think saying 'ethics need to be based on good reasons' is an appeal to the argument from evil against the existence of a benevolent god. I suppose it's rather telling that you think advocacy of reason-based ethics is a challenge to god, because it reveals that you tacitly acknowledging that human belief in god is unreasonable and that it prevents humans from using their reasoning skills to make useful ethical judgements.
Indeed, I think the unreasonable nature of human belief in god is revealed by your attempt to avoid a false authority fallacy by defining god as a perfect authority.
That's like a burglar defending himself in court by arguing that the court should begin its proceedings by defining him as unquestionably innocent. It's not difficult to see that your argument was no more sophisticated than 'God is not a false authority because he isn't'.
(by the way, there should be a space between 'auroret' and 'que' if you want your user title to read 'the day the sun rises and radiates a red dawn'. Currently it's gibberish, Curiously my user title is also about stars, because T-Tauris are volatile newly-born stars)
To be honest, I'm not sure that we should be bothered whether religious people think we're bad people just because we don't believe in gods.
Why should we desire somebody's approval if their morality is so primitive that they judge people by their faith, or lack thereof, instead of their character?
Agnostic here. not sure there is a god or not, but not ruling out the possibility. Tried being a Christian before, didn't work for me. that's all, really :L
I do not believe in any sort of deity. I'd try elaborating but the issues with religious and nonreligious people when it comes to topics like this have already reared their ugly head and I'm not keen on dealing with those types of people...again.
Are you making the ontological argument for the existence and nature of god?
This is my one point of contention with Aristotilian ethics and Catholic ethics. I'm still trying to work it out, honestly. I also believe I've mentioned this before:
How about it?
Right. So why do you think that I've been specifically mentioning atheistic humanistic ethics? Just because? Absolutely no reason?
So let me get this straight. If God is real, and as the Church says, is omnipotent and omniscient, He knows either everything that has happened and will be, or everything that is possible to know at any given time (Free Will and God's Omniscience by Michael Lacewing). I think that, considering a false authority fallacy's definition, no matter which form God's omniscience takes, I'm not sure how you find
Hey! Guys! Add another one to the tally of arguments that Fallowfox understood! That was a very nice re-statement of my argument, Mr. Fox. Thank you. And what's wrong with simple arguments?
As knowledgeable about Latin as Aristotle's and Catholic ethics, I see. I have literally no clue how on Earth you got "the day the sun rises and radiates a red dawn," out of "cum solem surgat auroretque dies incepit." Admittedly, that is improper grammar, and I have corrected it to "cum sol surrexit auroratque dies incepit." I have fixed my improper use of the subjunctive mood. On to your point about "que." "-que" is a suffix that means "and." The whole Latin phrase means, "When the sun has risen and is shining, the day has begun."
Nay, sir, that was not an argument for the existence of God. It was more a suggestion that the restriction of free will is not good, and given that God is defined as the ultimate good, or as the Catechism puts it, God is Truth and Love (CCC 214-221).
So you think that condoms are bad because they prevent the chance of achieving pregnancy, which is the 'intended purpose of sex'
But you think gay sex is fine, even though this can't achieve pregnancy?
That's not even consistent; does it mean that you think gay people can wear condoms but that straight people shouldn't?
It's a joke, just like your argument that god isn't a false authority because you choose to define her as 'not a false authority'.
You could use this to prove that the Hindu gods exist because, because the Hindu gods are perfect, and a necessary quality of their perfection is that they exist.
Yeah it's pretty obviously the standard ontological argument.
I've always thought ontological arguments are pretty dumb. It's like sitting down and proclaiming 'My point of view is right, because a necessary quality of it being right is that it is true,'.
I think it just shows how desperate some philosophers in history were to boot-strap god into existence.
Part of the intended purpose, yes.
God is "not a false authority" by virtue of His qualities.
Eh, B- for effort. Abject failure for integrity of this claim. Perhaps you ought to look at St. Thomas Aquinas' proof for the existence of a god/God.
I'm not convinced that sex has an intended purpose, because I am not convinced that any conscious being invented sexual reproduction.
It would be clearer to describe reproduction as its biological function.
If you're fine with gay sex, then you're fine with sex that isn't open to the possibility of procreation.
If you're fine with sex that isn't open to the possibility of procreation, then why do you support the catholic church's opposition to condoms on the grounds that they preclude reproduction?
The prime mover argument doesn't work. Thomas Aquinas lived 700 years before developments in physics demonstrated that cosmogenic causality doesn't work in the way he describes.
If you're smart you can see that Thomas's argument is wrong because it incorrectly lead him to the conclusion that all heat is caused by fire, when we know it is not (because we live 700 years in the future, where we know that Fission, Fusion, gravitational collapse, aqueous chemical reactions ,electrical resistance and simply applying pressure to objects, generate heat- all without any fire.
Reductio ad absurdum, he is wrong.
Indeed if we couldn't generate heat without fire, then human bodies wouldn't be warm blooded and we would all be dead.
Fair point, but again, you're forgetting the Church's teaching that sex should only happen in marriage, where the purpose of being unitive is added in.
Oh, well thank goodness there are four other arguments.
You know, the way the body processes sugar is, more or less, a combustion reaction. Just much slower and more controlled.
Shouldn't this mean you oppose gay sex even more vehemently? Not only can it not produce children, but the catholic church doesn't recognise gay marriages, so it's not unitive either.
If you based your ethics on evidence that is afforded to us because we're lucky enough to live in a scientific age, instead of ancient tomes written by people who didn't know sperm and egg cells existed and who burned homosexuals alive for being an affront to god, then you wouldn't be vexed by these quandaries. (I suppose you also wouldn't be trying to defend an ethical position that is aiding the spread of HIV, which would be an added perk)
Separate names with a comma.