About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 9:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Regi,

I've just got to chime in here. First a confession:
I am a tabula rasa advocate (absolutely no mental content before having any perceptual content).

But I have seen evidence showing identifiable differences in temperament (which is perhaps best understood as a consistent way of interpreting and reacting to adversity) in children as young as age 3, and perhaps 2.

Say, for example, one toddler consistently plays in the corner; while another consistently jumps to the middle of the room to invoke the attention and laughter of the other toddlers (introvert vs. extrovert).

This appears contradictory to me (I can't imagine the accumulated mental content at age 2 or 3 as already being something that is so differentiating).

I'm working on a explanation (all apparent contradictions like this are merely an indication of error in the manner or extent of thought). I'd welcome anyone's thoughts on the matter.

Ed

Post 21

Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 9:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Orion,

I don't feel you've justified (by mere mechanical explanation) any moral relativity.

In order to highlight the contrast in our views, I will pick on another common thought error in ethics.

People like Shermer (editor of Skeptic magazine) believe that - for a morality to be objective - it must be obvious to everyone, everywhere, and all the time.

In his new book on Good & Evil, Shermer attempts the arduous task of noting consistency in the obvious dispositions across cultures an history; space & time (thinking that he is building a base for an objective morality in this way).

The error in his thought is a subjective one - he feels that all people will "feel" all the objective aspects of morality, and that this is what gives it the universality that it needs in order to claim objectivity.

In this way, a universal human "feeling" about something - such as murder - will prove that it is "wrong" (because we all subjectively "feel" it is wrong).

This is, in some way, analogous to your method of determining morality by individual (innate) inclinations.

An absurd conclusion from your premises is that it is more wrong for someone to commit murder if they were "strongly inclined by their temperament" to refrain from doing so. And the opposite: it is less wrong for someone to commit murder if and when they were highly inclined to do so (via innate drives or dispositions).

Orion, I may be going overboard here, but this whole business of non-cognitive ethics really makes my blood boil and I have little sympathy for the ideas that feed it.

Ed

Post 22

Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 10:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Regi, Ed,

Why is the morality of homosexuality called into question right now?  Because of the "psychological damage" argument, or the "misuse of what nature gave us" argument?  Both?  I've been following "the Great Debate" closely and I've yet to hear an actual, clear, unique reason why homosexual sex is immoral.  Or homosexual feelings, or whatever.

Just looking for context, here.  Thanks.


Post 23

Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 10:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Know what, nevermind.  I don't wanna know.

Post 24

Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 12:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

I was thinking about your statement about differentiated temperament as early as 2 or 3.  It might help to remember that the human mind takes in an incredible amount of raw information every second it is conscious.  Just in the raw sensory data combining sight, smell, sound, touch, and taste, there is a multitude of information that is taken in by an infant.  At the rate that a young mind probably integrates data, there is plenty of opportunity for infants to be drastically different as early as two or three despite being born with a "tabula rasa".

What does interest me is that there has been evidence to suggest that hormonal influences in the brain can affect temperament, even before birth.  A good example of this theory was in the John Stossel special about gender differences where a female fetal primate (I *think* it was a primate; could have been a monkey) was injected with male hormones and when born exhibited all of the overly aggressive traits that are normally associated with males.  They also showed a woman with the same situation, basically a tomboy from birth.  (Interestingly enough, she was not a lesbian despite this hormonal imbalance).

In other words, we basically create our own temperament, but it may be that we are subject to influences that make certain kinds of temperament more prevalent in certain minds than others.

Oh, and if homosexuality is a temperament-type situation, remember that temperaments can change.  There are plenty of people who were introverts/extroverts and then became the opposite later.  Heck, I'm one of them...

Kevin 


Post 25

Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 1:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeremy,

I don't wanna know.
 
I know this is not evasion, because you don't evade. It must be a presumption that whatever would be said, is not something you would agree with. You might be right. This is answer is not for you, but you raised the question, and someone else might be interested in the answer.

Why is the morality of homosexuality called into question right now?  

I don't know the answer to that question, because I don't know what it means. Is there some special time when it is appropriate or not appropriate to address some questions?

Because of the "psychological damage" argument, or the "misuse of what nature gave us" argument?  Both? 

Now this is a different question. Not the morality one.

I've been following "the Great Debate" closely and I've yet to hear an actual, clear, unique reason why homosexual sex is immoral.  Or homosexual feelings, or whatever.

This probably true because the morality issue is the least important. If there is a morality issue, it is an entirely personal and private one, much as someone who cheats themselves by not studying what they believe they ought to study, or not doing some job they believe they ought to do.

With regard to homosexuality there are three issues: 1. Is it chosen or is it predetermined? If it is predetermined, of course, it is automatically excluded from any morality question, because morality only pertains to choice. Then, it is neither moral or immoral.

This issue is made much more complicated than it seems by the fact that both sides are argued by the same advocates. It is argue that homosexuality is a given, not chosen. It is argued they have a right to do anything they choose. But homosexuality is not a state, it is a behavior, and all human behavior is chosen. So what is meant by homosexuality being a given? What's given?

The second issue is whether or not homosexuality is self-harmful, or self-destructive. If it is, that certainly raises the question of whether one ought to practice what is harmful to one's self. If it isn't harmful, it only means that particular issue does not exist.

There is a third issue, which is the question of normality, meaning consistent with the biological and psychological nature. It is abnormal to put things like rocks and peas in one's nose, as children sometimes do, because the nature of the nose is not to accommodate rocks and peas. That particular abnormal practice seldom is a problem however.

If someone practices something they themselves know is harmful to themselves, and could cease that practice but do not, and the sole reason for continuing the self-destructive behavior is desire or passion, with no rational justification for the action, that would be immoral, for that person.

There is no action or behavior anyone engages in, no matter how self-destructive or personally immoral, that anyone has a right to use force or coercion to prevent. Freedom means freedom to do any dumb, self-destructive, or immoral thing one likes, but it also means one has to bear the consequences of their bad choices themselves.

My interest in this issue is because I see three arguments being made by Objectivists that seem to me inimical to Objectivism:

1. That one's practices are determined by something other than volitional choice, like genetics, pre-natal influences, or brain chemicals.

2. That passion or desire, by themselves, justify some choices or actions.

3. That sexual pleasure is the ultimate human pleasure and the sole purpose for living. This view causes Objectivists to say things like, "you want him to not have any sexual pleasure," as though that were tantamount to a death sentence. (This kind of questioned could be asked about pedophiles and rapists.)

Maybe we should change the name of SOLO, to the "Sense Of Lust Objectivists." ;>)

Regi


Post 26

Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 2:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I hate to hijack a discussion but I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the what the military policy should or should not be towards homosexuals and homosexual conduct. The United States Armed Forces prohibits homosexual conduct and will discharge any member for engaging in such conduct. Some of our European "allies" have the opposite.

Post 27

Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 2:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
regi:

"3. That sexual pleasure is the ultimate human pleasure and the sole purpose for living. "

when did anyone on this forum say anything even remotely close to this?

" This view causes Objectivists to say things like, "you want him to not have any sexual pleasure," as though that were tantamount to a death sentence."

you certainly are forbidding a great pleasure. probably not the ultimate pleasure but definitely a very important one. as for how much of a "death sentence" or not it would be to be without sex, it certainly seems that rand herself thought this particular pleasure to be very important.

Post 28

Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 5:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Robert,

You asked: when did anyone on this forum say anything even remotely close to this?
 
I don't recall that any have, or that I said they have. Is said, "...arguments being made by Objectivists," not Objectivists on this forum.

you certainly are forbidding a great pleasure. probably not the ultimate pleasure but definitely a very important one. as for how much of a "death sentence" or not it would be to be without sex, it certainly seems that rand herself thought this particular pleasure to be very important.
 
Now, when did I ever forbid anyone from any sexual pleasure they choose? If I were in a position to forbid anything it would be to forbid anyone from interfering in the affairs, including the sexual practices, of anyone. I have no intention or desire to change anyone else in any way whatsoever, much less determine what pleasures they enjoy or how.

My point is, no matter how great a pleasure is, in itself, that does not justify pursuing it. How many people have completely screwed up their lives pursuing some pleasure they regretted for the rest of their life? I think it is wrong for Objectivists to use desire or passion as the basis for determining anything is right or good.

Regi


Post 29

Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 6:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Ed,

It took you very few words to suggest a question that would take at least a chapter in a book to answer, possibly a whole book.

But I have seen evidence showing identifiable differences in temperament (which is perhaps best understood as a consistent way of interpreting and reacting to adversity) in children as young as age 3, and perhaps 2.

We are all born with a huge complex of desires, passions, different ways of feeling, abilities, and characteristics, and no two individuals have the same set. "Temperament" is one of the characteristics we are born with.

At birth, however, they are all generalized and undifferentiated. No desire is for any specific thing and no emotional reaction is to any particular thing. We are born with a generalized desire for food, but no desire for any particular food until we learn what constitutes food, what food we like the taste or texture of, and what food we do not like. Nobody is born with a craving for cookies. Some people have that craving once they learn what they are.

But we cannot eat just anything we learn to desire because we desire it. We also have to learn which food is good for us, and which harmful, which things we must include in our diet for health, and which will poison us.

All the generalized desires and "impulses" we are born with are the same. How we develop them, use them, satisfy them is, at least for a while, within our ability to shape and control. It is possible to become so habituated to the practices we learn, that changing them eventually becomes impossible, or at least it becomes impossible to be motivated to do so.

I see no problem at all in the fact that children exhibit very great differences in innate characteristics. None of those determine what a child will do or become, but are the field of potential available to the child, and within that field, the possibilities are infinite.

Regi


Post 30

Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 6:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Byron,

Well you're safe hijacking my threads, but there are certain people who shall remain nameless, who would go around unsanctioning every post you had ever made if you did it to them. I know.

But, you haven't hijacked it, because it is a pertinent question.

I hate to hijack a discussion but I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the what the military policy should or should not be towards homosexuals and homosexual conduct. The United States Armed Forces prohibits homosexual conduct and will discharge any member for engaging in such conduct. 

The obvious answer, but probably not what you are getting at, is the military police should enforce whatever the U. S. Armed Forces policy is.

I think the real question is, what should that policy be? If the military were financed voluntarily, there would be no question. It would be determined by whatever those financing the military were willing to pay for. For example, I suspect the majority of people would not be willing to finance a military that sanctioned homosexual practices by military personnel. However, if the military was made up of units supported by different agencies, like the British military was at one time, there certainly might be some military units supported by those who were agreeable to it, that included homosexuals and made no restrictions on their practices.

Under the present system, there is no real just solution. I suspect the current policy is based on the best possible solution given the current conditions. I think changing that policy might be detrimental to both the efficiency of the military to perform its primary function and harmful to the overall morale of military personnel.


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.