Originally posted by bbarr
I don't think either prostitution or pornography are intrinsically wrong. I can conceive of situations within which either would be morally permissible. Can't you?
Ofcourse I can, how does a possible conceivable situation determine the morality of an otherwise immoral act ?
1.3 eg : Murder is immoral. Yet murder can be in self defense, thus does that now deem murder morally permissable ? No.
1.4 Let us think of a more concise example. A woman needs to support her children financially and thus offers her body up for sex. She does not want to have sex with strange men , however she needs to support her children. A man comes along, has intercourse with her and pays her money for sex. Do you believe the man's actions are moral ?
cheers
Originally posted by pcaspianThe answer to your first question is: by definition and logical implication.
Ofcourse I can, how does a possible conceivable situation determine the morality of an otherwise immoral act ?
1.3 eg : Murder is immoral. Yet murder can be in self defense, thus does that now deem murder morally permissable ? No.
If you claim all instances of act A are immoral, but then you agree that one
instance of that act is not, then your entire claim was false. It's that simple.
For your murder example, you are using misleading terminology and
circular reasoning. You haven't stated whether you hold "Murder is immoral"
or "Murder in self-defense is moral" to be axiomatic. Further, you are
refusing to use a convenient terminology (killing versus murder) to
clarify this distinction.
As long as you continue to make the mistakes of this variety,
you can expect to find yourself the victim of the harsh rules
of implication.
Dr. Cribs
Originally posted by Cribs
The answer to your first question is: by definition and logical implication.
If you claim all instances of act A are immoral, but then you agree that one
instance of that act is not, then your entire claim was false. It's that simple.
1.6 Well ofcourse it is Cribbs, however we can apply phony examples to every day life to nullify what is considered immoral behaviour. Is raping a child immoral. Yes, ofcourse it is. But are we being a little childish by claiming that indeed it is not immoral because raping a child can be moral under one particular definition. eg: If by raping the child, you are indeed saving the life of the child as the child will be shot by a 3rd Person if you do not do so. We're all grown ups here, and whilst we can find obscure examples (which we are all capable of)in order to fascilitate constructive discussion, we should refrain from using such obscure examples.
For your murder example, you are using misleading terminology and
circular reasoning. You haven't stated whether you hold "Murder is immoral"
or "Murder in self-defense is moral" to be axiomatic. Further, you are
refusing to use a convenient terminology (killing versus murder) to
clarify this distinction.
It is pretty much my entire point Cribbs. We can ofcourse clarify every statement to the nth degree should we really feel life it, then blaim the question on slack terminology. Is abortion immoral ? Well ofcourse we can discuss real life variants to this question, eg: Is the mothers health at risk, which is a valid point, however again claiming that abortion would indeed be moral should the child be destined to explode at birth, we are merely mentioning irrelavant edge cases.
When we establish the law, we allow for a generalised set of morals. In other words, just because a particular set of morals has a caveat, does not imply that the particular moral should not be enforced. Any caveats to a particular moral will be examines further in a court of law.
As long as you continue to make the mistakes of this variety,
you can expect to find yourself the victim of the harsh rules
of implication.
Not really Cribbs. As you can see I mentioned an example to Bennet which is fairly concise, precisely to encourage a feasible response.
Originally posted by pcaspianI strongly disagree. Allow me to construct an analogy to show why.
We're all grown ups here, and whilst we can find obscure examples (which we are all capable of)in order to fascilitate constructive discussion, we should refrain from using such obscure examples.
Consider that you own a house surrounded by a yard, and so does
your neighbor. You both have a general but vague idea of where
your yard ends and his begins. Now suppose one of you wants to build
a fence. Without getting down to the facts about the exact border,
one party or another is not going to be satisfied that the fence was
built in the right place, even though it roughly corresponds to each
neighbor's idea of his own yard.
If we are going to debate claims of "This is moral" and "That is immoral",
just like the neighbors who don't inspect the inches and feet around their
house but instead inspect the borders, it is important to do the same
in the debate. If we do not inspect the borders, we will never know
where the fence lies; that is, we cannot know whether "This is moral"
is a true claim or not by only examining the easy cases.
Such is the lazy, boring, and unproductive approach to debate.
It is also the approach used by those who are not confident in the
stability of their claims; "Fragile!", "Handle with Care!"
Dr. Cribs
Originally posted by Cribs<grin> Exactly happened.
I strongly disagree. Allow me to construct an analogy to show why.
Consider that you own a house surrounded by a yard, and so does
your neighbor. You both have a general but vague idea of where
your yard ends and his begins. Now suppose one of you wants to build
a fence. Without getting down to the facts about the exact border,
one party or another ...[text shortened]... ot confident in the
stability of their claims; "Fragile!", "Handle with Care!"
Dr. Cribs
I gave "gary" two feet on the north end of my lot. I wanted a friend much more that 85 X 2 square feet of dirt. Besides... less grass to occupy my mowing efforts.
But then I am a saint.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyAnd I'm sure in the process you didn't just sit in
<grin> Exactly happened.
I gave "gary" two feet on the north end of my lot. I wanted a friend much more that 85 X 2 square feet of dirt. Besides... less grass to occupy my mowing efforts.
But then I am a saint.
your house and think to yourself, "Well, as long
as he doesn't come in here, I guess he can put
the fence wherever he wants it." That is effectively
what pcaspican is trying to say we should all do
in debate. I call that not even having a debate.
Originally posted by CribsNo. I got to know him better. He was pretty beligerent in the opening scene. They had a forty foot motor home that needed a roof. By making friends we gained freindship.
And I'm sure in the process you didn't just sit in
your house and think to yourself, "Well, as long
as he doesn't come in here, I guess he can put
the fence wherever he wants it." That is effectively
what pcaspican is trying to say ...[text shortened]... e should all do
in debate. I call that not even having a debate.
Chimp credits go both ways.
<edit> the only reason I did it was he was man enough to come and ask. it's a Utah thing. had I received a letter from a lawyer... say the ambulance chasing "John II verse 10" ... we would still be enemies. Trust and cars. And communication.
Originally posted by bbarr
I don't think either prostitution or pornography are intrinsically wrong. I can conceive of situations within which either would be morally permissible. Can't you?
If your daughter or wife wanted to participate in these activities you would not have any moral objections at all ?
First off, folks... who'd gonna marry a hooker?
Next, your daughter becomes a hooker... was it the way she was raised? Is she just a plain old nymph or something? Either way, if she's 18 she's got a mind of her own... I can't say I would stand behind her decision.
I look forward to the day a small group of people can decide what is right or wrong for everyone... that is my dream.
P-
Originally posted by pcaspianGood, now we have established that there are circumstances within which prostitution and pornography may be morally permissible.
Originally posted by bbarr
[b]I don't think either prostitution or pornography are intrinsically wrong. I can conceive of situations within which either would be morally permissible. Can't you?
Ofcourse I can, how does a possible conceivable situation determine the morality of an otherwise immoral act ?
1.3 eg : Murder is immoral. Yet ...[text shortened]... her and pays her money for sex. Do you believe the man's actions are moral ?
cheers
[/b]
In general, I find it hard to believe that women freely choose to be prostitutes. It seems like a career a woman would be driven to by circumstance. How many prostitutes are runaways? How many prostitutes were underaged or single mothers? I wouldn't hold a woman morally responsible for prostituting herself if she was on the streets with no place to go of which she knew. Similarly, I wouldn't hold a woman morally responsible for prostituting herself if she had a child to feed or clothe.
So, what are the morally troubling aspects of prostitution? Of course, you will want to say that it is the perversion of a gift from God. You will claim that it is the improper use of an activity that has an ordained purpose (either procreation or expression of intimacy within the context of a monogamous, married relationship). I will claim that to the extent an act of prostitution involves coercion, deception, or other failures of respect for one's personhood or that of another, that act will be wrong. I see no reason why all or even most acts of prostitution must involve failures of this sort. Hence, I see no reason why prostitution is even prima facie immoral. Similar remarks apply to pornography.
In the exmple you mention, does the man know that the woman destitute, with starving children, etc.?
Originally posted by CribsI wasn't thinking of degree of risk as being a determinant of the impermissibility of the contract. I think that Brown acted immorally when he stipulated the conditions because he had an alternate course of action (i.e., compassionately assisting Smith for Smith's own benefit), that was morally obligatory.
I'm not particularly interested in exploring consent and morality
under addiction. That was an unintentional and careless aspect
of my choice of analogy.
But to summarize your answer, the essential differences between
the two situations are:
1. The degree of risk for loss of life (25% versus something just over 0% )
2. The possibility of addiction ...[text shortened]... erm akratic. Could you give
a brief definition and example? I haven't been able to find one.
Akratic actions are those undertaken against one's better judgement, they are failures of practical rationality. There is fierce philosophical controversy over whether Akratic actions are voluntary or whether they are instances of compulsion. So, suppose my all-things-considered judgement is that I ought not to have another Glenfiddich. Suppose the waitress comes around and asks me if I'd like another. Suppose I straightaway ask for another Glenfiddich, even though I realize that I'm acting against my all-things-considered judgement. What's happened here? Has an addiction gotten the better of me? Do I have an overpowering inclination not subject to the force of my deliberations? Did something change in my motivational set between the time I judged that I ought not have another and the time the waitress came by the table?
Originally posted by bbarrI'll have to mull over your first point for a bit.
I wasn't thinking of degree of risk as being a determinant of the impermissibility of the contract. I think that Brown acted immorally when he stipulated the conditions because he had an alternate course of action (i.e., compassionately assisting Smith for Smith's own benefit), that was morally obligatory.
Akratic actions are those undertaken against o ...[text shortened]... n the time I judged that I ought not have another and the time the waitress came by the table?
I'm not sure if I agree or disagree, or just
don't understand it in the context of this discussion.
Your answers to these questions might help me...
Do you think that the premise of this thread,
the "Consenting Adults Theory" is inherently flawed
becasue it is trying to judge a group's morality
rather than that of the consenting individuals?
In other words, your first paragraph analyzes
Brown's own morality, but doesn't address that
of the pair of people. Is that to say that morality
is really something that applies only to individuals?
Or is that to say that if one individual in a group
of consenting adults acts immorally, then that
immorality pollutes the morality of the enitre group?
As for akraticity, it seems like that issue would be
fertile ground for neuroscience. It seems that their
insight into the mechanics of how the brain makes
decisions should be a major factor in the philosophical
debate over the classification of akratic actions.
By the way, I am enjoying our well-organized and
well-reasoned exploration of these ideas. It has been
a pleasure to debate with a fellow Wolf.
Dr. Cribs