Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 21, 2008 13:41:14 GMT -4
I'll probably soon be kicking myself for bringing up this topic again, but it has been mighty quiet here lately. This opinion piece was forwarded to my attention by a friend of mine. It is obviously satirical in nature, but I think it may be raising a serious point. If one argues that "who you love" is genetically determined, where do you draw the line? Is all behavior genetically determined, or do environment and free will have some say in the matter? If you make a case that one form of behavior is not a person's choice and should therefore be socially accepted, then why not all behaviors?
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Aug 21, 2008 13:55:57 GMT -4
I didn't click on the link, so I am flying blind here.
Some behaviors infringe on the rights of others. Those behaviors are not acceptable.
As a society, we have determined that our youth must be protected until a certain age. Adult behavior that violates that protection is not acceptable.
Science shows us that homosexuality is a non-aberrant behavior. If practiced between consenting adults, it does not infringe on the rights of others.
Does that help?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Aug 21, 2008 14:05:33 GMT -4
DNFTT
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Aug 21, 2008 14:09:28 GMT -4
I didn't. I was poking him with a stick.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 21, 2008 14:49:29 GMT -4
So, would you argue that any behavior that is not infringing on the rights of others is moral?
What about self-destrcutive behavior? EDIT: And to clarify, I'm not arguing at the moment that homosexual behavior is destructive, I'm asking if some theoretical behavior that was demonstratably self destructive should be considered moral.
And I'm not a troll - I'm looking for an authentic discussion, not just trying to provoke a response.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Aug 21, 2008 15:18:07 GMT -4
Some destructive behavior is considered to be normal. A day at the beach can be very damaging to the skin. Going to a loud concert can damage the ears. Smoking can damage the lungs. Running can damage the knees.
What is your point?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 21, 2008 16:07:44 GMT -4
Well, your basis for morality seems to be that an action that does not infringe on the rights of others is moral. You've used cases of what may be destructive behavior - things like staying in the sun too long or smoking. What about behavior that defnitely is immediately destructive - overdosing on heroin, or jumping off a building with no bungy cord. Are those actions still moral as long as you're only injuring yourself?
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Aug 21, 2008 16:40:31 GMT -4
There is no basis for judging what is and is not "moral," so determining what is or is not morally correct is not possible. As a society, we strive to write our laws to best accommodate the freedoms of the individual and balance those with the needs of the populace.
We know that smoking is destructive -- yet this society has decided to balance the individual right to smoke with damage that it might cause to the non-smoking populace. Many places now require eating establishments and public areas of buildings to be smoke-free. This is because the very act of smoking can infringe on the rights of non-smokers to remain smoke free.
Not infringing the rights of others is one consideration of what defines acceptable behavior. There are other considerations, also. Society has determined that illicit drug use is not acceptable -- even though some forms are less damaging than some things society accepts, such as smoking and drinking. Mental health is also a consideration. Some destructive behavior might be considered acceptable for a mentally healthy individual -- but not so for an emotionally unstable or mentally challenged individual. So it is a mixed bag.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 21, 2008 17:08:10 GMT -4
Can I assume that you generally agree with society? After all, in your earlier post you said "Some behaviors infringe on the rights of others. Those behaviors are not acceptable." You didn't qualify it with "society says those behaviors are not acceptable."
Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Aug 21, 2008 17:21:33 GMT -4
Well, that's a tricky one -- and I guess you realize that. Not all societies are equal, not all of any society's judgements are correct and not all societies have individual rights as a primary concern.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Aug 22, 2008 3:51:45 GMT -4
If one argues that "who you love" is genetically determined, where do you draw the line? But, is that not your side's argument... that whom one loves is genetically determined by their biological gender? What about behavior that defnitely is immediately destructive - overdosing on heroin, or jumping off a building with no bungy cord. Are those actions still moral as long as you're only injuring yourself? That would depend on the morals of those engaging in said actions. Is it moral to enjoy science fiction?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 22, 2008 10:58:12 GMT -4
Well, that's a tricky one -- and I guess you realize that. Not all societies are equal, not all of any society's judgements are correct and not all societies have individual rights as a primary concern. Ah, so do you see a society that gives greater respect to individual rights as superior to one that does not?
|
|
Ian Pearse
Mars
Apollo (and space) enthusiast
Posts: 308
|
Post by Ian Pearse on Aug 22, 2008 11:00:35 GMT -4
"Nature or nurture?" is one of those arguments that will run and run - my feeling is that it will never be answered completely. My own take is that some behaviours are driven by genetically-based drives, some from non-genetic sources. Sorry if that's a bit vague but I'm generalising horribly. I think we have a problem when, as a society, we try to decide what is acceptable or not acceptable behaviour, as the basis for doing so seems to me to be totally atrificial, in that society, in it's current, highly complex form, is a created idea that comes from our brains, rather than our genes - if that makes sense. There will inevitably be conflict when society rules against something that may be based on ancient drives buried in our genetic makeup.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 22, 2008 11:06:03 GMT -4
But, is that not your side's argument... that whom one loves is genetically determined by their biological gender? That is a bit of an oversimplification. In my view your biological gender does determine which gender it is morally permissible to engage in a sexual relationship with, but there are other considerations as well, such as being married to them first. And a non-sexual relationship can be described as "love" as well. By that logic any behavior I believe is moral is moral. If I decided it was moral for me to hate anyone who likes strawberries (to pick a random example) it would be moral. It is if it's good science fiction.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 22, 2008 11:09:02 GMT -4
My own take is that some behaviours are driven by genetically-based drives, some from non-genetic sources. Sorry if that's a bit vague but I'm generalising horribly. How about some specific examples? Can you think of something that is plausibly entirely genetically-driven or something plausibly entirely environment-driven? Are there some behaviors that are completely our choice, with no input from genetics or environment? So, does it seem entirely artificial to you that we consider rape and murder unacceptable and punish it when we can? One could easily argue that the impulses behind murder and rape are buried in our more primitive past.
|
|