mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/28/85)
In article <1588@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >What about prohibitions that have nothing to do with other people's lives? >Like choice of sexual lifestyle, for example. Obviously stealing and >killing are part of minimal non-interference morality, so I'm not sure why >you bothered to mention them. Adultery and coveting? I think these stem >from notions of marriage as ownership, which fit into the category of >negative restrictions. Commitment to marriage is a personal between two >people. Let's take homosexuality for a minute. Assume for the moment that some christians believe that homosexuality is a sin. There's a well established principle in Christianity (it's in the NT) that one should not do things which would tend to lead these people astray (from their point of view), even if you believe these actions to be perfectly acceptable. Your actions, although they are morally acceptable from your point of view, interfere with another through the power of example. On to adultery... First we must ask what marriage is. I think it's sufficient to define it as a commitment to a (semi-)permanent relationship between two people. Adultery is a break in this commitment, almost always bringing on disruption of the relationship. So again, there is an interference with the good of another (at least potentially). These examples lead me to question whether Rich is seeing interference in too narrow terms. Most social acts have side effects through example or other channels, as well as the direct intention. Is it not reasonable to ask people to consider those side effects as well when avoiding interference? >But the 'involving god' part IS most definitely a part of the Christian >morality that some Christians seek to impose on the rest of us. And since >not all the "shalt not"s are part of the minimal morality mold, there you >see the problems with Christianity as a viable societal moral code. Judaism has a distinction betwen the laws Jews are expected to follow, and those laws which anyone is expected to follow. Different groups within christendom have different viewpoints about demanding obesiance to God and Jesus. It's therefore incorrect to characterize this impositional sort of morality as the only christian position. (Not that Rich does above) >If we were talking about aversion therapy for homosexuals or something >arbitrary like that, I could see your point. This would be a vile >restriction of human freedom (of which Alan Turing was a victim). On the >other hand, if we are talking about anti-human behavior, harming other >people, such a person is a danger to other people. The first method gives >the person a chance to change to behavior that doesn't harm other people, >before banishment or exile. Anti-human behavior IS the definition of evil, Rich. If homosexuality is thought to be severe enough a perversion (and thus harmful to normal sexuality), then this whole argument falls flat. And equally, one must examine one's own soul when proposing these kinds of actions. I tend to believe that homosexuality is a sin (but not a particularly bad one), but the hateful emotion directed against them by many people makes me at present a supporter of homosexual rights under most circumstances. Charley Wingate "I say this because I want to be prime minister of Canada someday." -- Michael J. Fox
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/30/85)
>>What about prohibitions that have nothing to do with other people's lives? >>Like choice of sexual lifestyle, for example. Obviously stealing and >>killing are part of minimal non-interference morality, so I'm not sure why >>you bothered to mention them. Adultery and coveting? I think these stem >>from notions of marriage as ownership, which fit into the category of >>negative restrictions. Commitment to marriage is a personal between two >>people. [ROSEN] > Let's take homosexuality for a minute. Assume for the moment that > some christians believe that homosexuality is a sin. There's a well > established principle in Christianity (it's in the NT) that one should not > do things which would tend to lead these people astray (from their point of > view), even if you believe these actions to be perfectly acceptable. Your > actions, although they are morally acceptable from your point of view, > interfere with another through the power of example. [WINGATE] Let me get this straight. If I were a homosexual, I would be obliged by your morality not to engage in homosexual acts because I might influence others like you to do likewise? (I'm not sure if that's what you said. I have no idea who you are talking about leading whom astray.) Even if I saw nothing wrong with it? But if you can't show anything wrong with it, what's wrong with convincing other people who might have homosexual repressed inclinations that it's all right to be homosexual? You're presuming your own conclusion about its negativity. If you agree that there is no harm in my doing it, then there cannot be harm in "leading people astray" (your words) unless you are just arbitrarily making some negative judgment. By this reasoning, if by my judgment I thought religion was abhorrent, you would be obliged to refrain from it! > On to adultery... First we must ask what marriage is. I think it's > sufficient to define it as a commitment to a (semi-)permanent relationship > between two people. Adultery is a break in this commitment, almost always > bringing on disruption of the relationship. So again, there is an > interference with the good of another (at least potentially). First, there are a significant number of people engaging in what they call "open marriages" without sexual possessiveness, so your statements cannot be deemed to be universals. It is only an interference with the good of another if the agreement is of that particular nature. > These examples lead me to question whether Rich is seeing interference in > too narrow terms. Most social acts have side effects through example or > other channels, as well as the direct intention. Is it not reasonable to > ask people to consider those side effects as well when avoiding interference? Charles, your examples are leading me to believe that you see all your examples as universals, which they clearly are not. >>But the 'involving god' part IS most definitely a part of the Christian >>morality that some Christians seek to impose on the rest of us. And since >>not all the "shalt not"s are part of the minimal morality mold, there you >>see the problems with Christianity as a viable societal moral code. > Judaism has a distinction betwen the laws Jews are expected to follow, and > those laws which anyone is expected to follow. Different groups within > christendom have different viewpoints about demanding obesiance to God and > Jesus. It's therefore incorrect to characterize this impositional sort of > morality as the only christian position. (Not that Rich does above) In the case of this country today, it is the Christians who are seeking to impose. (Or at least a significant portion of them.) I was drawing from that example of impositional morality. Charlie's claim "but other religions have impositionalism too" doesn't hold water. He obviously hasn't read net.religion.jewish (the newsgroup he suggested sending articles on Jew-baiting to in order to test a netnews feature) in a while, for if he did he would have seen plenty of discussion about Jewish impositionalism. >>If we were talking about aversion therapy for homosexuals or something >>arbitrary like that, I could see your point. This would be a vile >>restriction of human freedom (of which Alan Turing was a victim). On the >>other hand, if we are talking about anti-human behavior, harming other >>people, such a person is a danger to other people. The first method gives >>the person a chance to change to behavior that doesn't harm other people, >>before banishment or exile. > Anti-human behavior IS the definition of evil, Rich. If homosexuality is > thought to be severe enough a perversion (and thus harmful to normal > sexuality), then this whole argument falls flat. I'll leave it to you now to show how homosexuality is "enough of a perversion" that it would be "harmful (??) to normal (??) sexuality". "If" is right, Charlie! You have your work cut out for you. > And equally, one must examine one's own soul when proposing these kinds of > actions. I tend to believe that homosexuality is a sin (but not a > particularly bad one), but the hateful emotion directed against them by many > people makes me at present a supporter of homosexual rights under most > circumstances. That's been the exact opposite of the tone you expressed when confronted with the "Why are you heterosexual?" questionnaire a few months back. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (08/30/85)
>Anti-human behavior IS the definition of evil, Rich. Don't let Jerry hear you, Charley, you humanist. I've gotten tired enough of Rich claiming "the" definition of free will, but at least his definition can be justified. >If homosexuality is >thought to be severe enough a perversion (and thus harmful to normal >sexuality), then this whole argument falls flat. And equally, one must >examine one's own soul when proposing these kinds of actions. I tend to >believe that homosexuality is a sin (but not a particularly bad one), but >the hateful emotion directed against them by many people makes me at present >a supporter of homosexual rights under most circumstances. I really think it would be better if you would stop dragging political and religious issues into net.philosophy. But since we are discussing morality, I would like to better understand the word "sin". Does it have any role in a discussion about morality? My understanding is that a sin is meaningful *only* in a religious context, and I would like to discuss morality in terms more general than those of religion. So please stop using terms loaded with religious significance or examples loaded with political connotations or ad hominem effects. Otherwise, I will start thinking of Charley Wingateality as a sin, and a pretty bad one at that. (Yes, that's right, I think saying that homosexuality is a sin is like saying that being white or having blond hair is a sin; you brought it up; now stuff it.) -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)