Originally posted by bbarr
Good, now we have established that there are circumstances within which prostitution and pornography may be morally permissible.
1.7 We can establish circumstances within which any act is morally permissable, do you not agree ? Can you give me an example of an immoral act that does not have circumstances within which may be morally permissible ?
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.
I don't particularly find fault with the prostitutes. Ofcourse I have a significantly greater amount of respect for women who refuse to prostitute their bodies irrespective of the circumstances, but that's not particularly relevant.
1.8 As your belief is that in general this is a profession woman are driven to by circumstance, would you agree that the majority of the same woman would indeed find their lifestyle degrading ?
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).
Not really. I find fault mostly with those that actually pay these prostitutes. Indeed I believe it was in our debate regarding necrophilla that you suggested your belief/view that all rational people wanted a loving relationship. Can't find the exact quote, perhaps you can recall.
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.
Do you believe prostitution does not have negative implications towards establishing/maintaining a healthy monogamous relationship ?
In the exmple you mention, does the man know that the woman destitute, with starving children, etc.?
I'll restate the 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. "
The woman has children to support. Supporting children could include needing to pay their school fees, needing to feed then, needing to buy them new clothes, doctors fees ect.
The man realises that the woman has bills to pay. He does not know the extent of her financial situation, however he does assume that she would rather support her children by means other than prostitution.
Just Curious, does ignorance excuse immoral behaviour ?
cheers
Originally posted by CribsI'm enjoying this debate as well, it's been a pleasure.
I'll have to mull over your first point for a bit.
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 ...[text shortened]... exploration of these ideas. It has been
a pleasure to debate with a fellow Wolf.
Dr. Cribs
First, I thought that the "consenting adults theory" involved minimally the claim that actual consent amongst all relevant parties to an action sufficed to make that action permissible. I thought the debate would then center around the necessary conditions for consent (e.g., It is normally presumed that being informed regarding an actions possible consequences is a necessary condition for being able to consent to that action. How informed must one be, however?) and determining who counts as a "relevant party" (e.g., Is anyone causally affected by an act a relevant party? Obviously not, but why not?).
While I normally concern myself with first-order moral judgements only as applied to individual actions and, hence, applied to individual persons, I also would like to be able to say of a social institution that it was immoral. So, I'm not committed to any analysis of moral predicates that entails they can only be predicated of individual actions and/or individual persons. In other words, the questions "What ought I do", and "What ought our society be like" are both moral questions, in my estimation.
I do not think that the actions of any one individual can morally pollute the group. I don't think collective punishment is justified, nor do I think that the sins of the father are passed to the son.
Neuroscience may have much light to shed on akrasia, but not for some time, I'm afraid. Are there particular patterns of neural activity that correspond with beliefs, desires, intentions, all-things-considered judgements? Neuroscience and Philosophy would need to get their ontologies in line before explanations from one could survive application to the other.
Bennett
Originally posted by Cribs
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
I could argue in a similar fashion that those that question even the most fundamental of truths are merely trying to avoid the topic at hand.
I will reapply my previous statement
1.6b "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. "
In the case of abortion we realise that under certain real life situations there can indeed be cases where abortion would be considered morally permissible. As such, it is not reckless, but incorrect to state that abortion is immoral (should ofcourse you believe there are real life caveats where abortion is not immoral).
You stated "Such is the lazy, boring, and unproductive approach to debate."
I believe lazy unproductive debate to be avoiding the issue at hand, or grasping straws. In your neighbour analogy, indeed borders will be inspected, however again you can argue to the nth degree over the precise measurements down to the millimeter of where the fence should be built. IN these forums we seldom involve God in actually determining morality. As such we make no "Fragile!", "Handle with Care!" claims, whatever that may be. We address issues at hand and discuss those in detail. However I believe we are all mature enough to avoid caveats such as 'what if that person was brainwashed' . The millimetres don't bother us too much.
cheers
What's the point of debating then?
Suppose you make some claim. Then there are
two cases to consider:
1. Everybody agrees with you.
2. Some people disagree with you. To show you
why they disagree, they construct a counterexample
to show that your claim doesn't hold.
In case 1, there is no debate to begin with.
In case 2, you are completely crippling your
opponent, because any such counterexample that
he constructs will be deemed by you as a fringe
case not to be considered.
In either case, there is no productive debate.
Dr. Cribs
Originally posted by Cribs
What's the point of debating then?
In case 1, there is no debate to begin with.
In case 2, you are completely crippling your
opponent, because any such counterexample that
he constructs will be deemed by you as a fringe
case not to be considered.
In either case, there is no productive debate.
Dr. Cribs
There is no argument that counter examples are not valid, the argument is that a moral claim may be deemed invalid simply because you can find a fictional obscure counter example, in which case the moral claim is invalid.
This was your claim in an earlier post.
My claim was that virtually any moral claim will suffer this shortcoming.
Raping children can be deemed moral under certain conditions. As such, we should only consider valid real life counter examples in debates, else the claim " Is act A immoral " would be futile.
cheers
Originally posted by pcaspianIf you are going to disallow abstract or hypothetical
As such, we should only consider valid real life counter examples in debates, else the claim " Is act A immoral " would be futile.
counterexamples, it is only fair to also disallow
abstract or hypothetical claims.
Thus, under your rules, you could not make the claim
that future abortions are wrong, because their
existence is abstract and hypothetical.
Dr. Cribs
Originally posted by bbarrYou are not answering my question. Why not ?
Is that what I claimed? No. Is that an entailment of anything I've claimed? No. Is that at all relevant to the text of mine you've quoted? No.
The question is hugely relevant and important. I'm trying to establish whether there is a factual difference between "public secular ethics" and "private secular ethics".
In practise there is indeed a difference. For instance people say, there is nothing morally wrong with using drugs, but I myself will never use the stuff. There is nothing morally wrong with prostitution but I don't want my wife or daughter to engage in these activities. There is nothing morally wrong with free sex but I don't want my daughter or mother to engage in it. There is nothing morally wrong in getting drunk every night, but I'm not going to do that. There is nothing morally wrong with pornography, but I'm not bying the stuff because it is silly. I don't see anything wrong in committing adultery but I don't want me or my wife doing it.
It seems a lot of people do have morals which they do not express publicly but they do act accordingly in their private life.
What is this situation all about ? Do people have a set of morals meant for the public debate and another set of morals for their private life ?
I consider it most relevant because that is one of the objectives of this thread to investigate this very contradiction between publicly and privately held morals.
Originally posted by Cribs
If you are going to disallow abstract or hypothetical
counterexamples, it is only fair to also disallow
abstract or hypothetical claims.
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Firstly , I'm not disallowing all hypothetical counterexamples. As we are all dealing with hypothetical scenarios, they are indeed valid. I am disallowing abstract counter examples which is in essence ,by definition, invalid.
eg: Is shooting babies wrong ? Yes.
counter example : No, what about those babies from the village of the damned. They will kill you when they grow up!
The entire idea behind a counter example is that it is real world, an example.
Thus, under your rules, you could not make the claim
that future abortions are wrong, because their
existence is abstract and hypothetical.
We know in future people will abort babies, thus that claim is not abstract, indeed it is a certainty really.
Originally posted by pcaspianYour entire thought process makes me shiver.
Originally posted by Cribs
[b]If you are going to disallow abstract or hypothetical
counterexamples, it is only fair to also disallow
abstract or hypothetical claims.
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Firstly , I'm not disallowing all hypothetical counterexamples. As we are all dealing with hypothetical scenarios, they ...[text shortened]... re people will abort babies, thus that claim is not abstract, indeed it is a certainty really.
[/b]
Originally posted by ivanhoeI may have objections or I may not, it depends upon the circumstances. As I claimed above, I find neither prostitution nor pornography intrinsically wrong.
You are not answering my question. Why not ?
The question is hugely relevant and important. I'm trying to establish whether there is a factual difference between "public secular ethics" and "private secular ethics".
In practise there is indeed a difference. For instance people say, there is nothing morally wrong with using drugs, but I myself wi ...[text shortened]... thread to investigate this very contradiction between publicly and privately held morals.
If my wife decided she wanted to be a prostitute solely because she liked sex and wanted extra cash, I would have a moral objection. My objection would be based upon her betraying vows we took and promises we made to one another. Further, my wife and I both feel that monogamy is an essential part of developing a truly intimate relationship. This, however, isn't a moral argument. By engaging in prostitution, my wife would be acting in a manner that undermines a goal I know she has, namely, to explore the depths of human intimacy; to really know another and be known in return. So, I've two objections I'd raise if my wife decided to become a prostitute solely because she liked sex and wanted extra cash. The moral argument is that she is betraying my trust. The argument based on rationality is that she would be acting in a manner that undermines other goals I know her to possess. Neither of these arguments will be universally applicable. If a woman hasn't made the type of commitment my wife has made to me, the moral argument wouldn't apply. If a woman hasn't the goal of developing a truly intimate relationship with another, then the argument from rationality wouldn't apply. Of course, depending on the circumstances, there may be other moral arguments or arguments from rationality that may apply. For instance, if a woman fails to take adequate protection against STD's while prostituting herself, and fails to inform her customers about this, then I would argue that she is violating a moral obligation by putting herself and others unecessarily at risk. I've just mentioned, for the hypothetical example concerning my wife, what I consider the two most salient arguments.
The case of my hypothetical daughter becoming a prostitute will be different, of course. I hope my comments above clarify how I would approach this other case.
Now, suppose someone claims both of the following:
1. There is nothing morally wrong about getting drunk every night
2. I ought not get drunk every night.
You seem to think that claiming both 1 and 2 indicates that one has two different ethical views, the first personally applicable and the second publically applicable. This may be the case, but it isn't necessarily the case. It may be the case that the "ought" that appears in 2 is the ought of instrumental rationality and not of morality. One may hold that although there is nothing morally wrong with getting drunk every night, it is not rational for one's self to get drunk every night because one has goals that are incompatible with nightly drinking.
Originally posted by bbarrHi Bbarr,
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?
A very interest take on akrasia--"the Glenfiddich Glitch"--is provided by George Ainslie's hyperbolic discounting theory (book: "Breakdown of Will"😉, with which you may already be familiar. It posits that our preferences are inherently unstable, that people devalue a future event at different rates, depending on how distant it is. Suppose I tell a bunch of people they have won a competition, and can have either $100 now or $200 three years from now. Most prefer to take the $100 now, which isn't particular irrational, as they could die in the interim, etc. However, if told they could have either $100 in six years or $200 in nine years, most people prefer the latter option. Thus, we have consummatory impulses and prudential impulses and which dominates to determine our choice between the two options depends upon the time scale involved. Surveyed the matter in advance, the prudential desire to abstain from Glenfiddich prdominates; surveying the matter in the moment, the consummatory desire to drink predominates. The mistake, Ainslie claims, is to identify your true self with your prudential desires. In fact, what your self is is a motivational marketplace in which prudential and consummatory desires jockey for supremacy.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIt seems a lot of people do have morals which they do not express publicly but they do act accordingly in their private life.
You are not answering my question. Why not ?
The question is hugely relevant and important. I'm trying to establish whether there is a factual difference between "public secular ethics" and "private secular ethics".
In practise ...[text shortened]... ry contradiction between publicly and privately held morals.
Thats only ture if all descions we make are based on morals. I don't take drugs but not for a moral reason, meerely on health grounds. There are other things that are worth making descions on other than morals.
Originally posted by pcaspian1.7 We can establish circumstances within which any act is morally permissable, do you not agree ? Can you give me an example of an immoral act that does not have circumstances within which may be morally permissible ?
Originally posted by bbarr
[b]Good, now we have established that there are circumstances within which prostitution and pornography may be morally permissible.
1.7 We can establish circumstances within which any act is morally permissable, do you not agree ? Can you give me an example of an immoral act that does not have circumstances within ...[text shortened]... r than prostitution.
Just Curious, does ignorance excuse immoral behaviour ?
cheers
[/b]
That depends on what you mean by ‘act’. If, by ‘act’, you mean merely something an agent intentionally does, then I agree with you. If, by ‘act’ you mean what I mean by ‘action’, then I disagree. I think actions are individuated by the motives of agents (e.g., my hand waving and your hand waving are different actions if your motivation is to dance and mine is to say ‘hello’ to a friend). Some actions are always morally impermissible. For instance, throwing a puppy into a wood chipper purely for fun is never morally permissible. You probably should construe my specifying of motives as a specification of circumstances, so that what I’m really claiming is that ‘actions’ in my sense are equivalent to (‘acts’ + some set of circumstances) in your sense. I’m not trying to be difficult here, I’m trying to show you how I use some relevant terms, so as to minimize confusion.
I don't particularly find fault with the prostitutes. Ofcourse I have a significantly greater amount of respect for women who refuse to prostitute their bodies irrespective of the circumstances, but that's not particularly relevant.
I’m sure you don’t mean “regardless of circumstances” in any absolute sense. Would you respect a parent who allowed their child to starve to death because they refused to engage in prostitution?
1.8 As your belief is that in general this is a profession woman are driven to by circumstance, would you agree that the majority of the same woman would indeed find their lifestyle degrading ?
In this culture, sure. I’m not sure about Geishas, and whether they find their lives degrading. I’m not sure about prostitution in other cultures generally, so I can’t make any confident determinations about the percentage of prostitutes overall who find their lives degrading. You’re probably right for the U.S., however.
Not really. I find fault mostly with those that actually pay these prostitutes. Indeed I believe it was in our debate regarding necrophilla that you suggested your belief/view that all rational people wanted a loving relationship. Can't find the exact quote, perhaps you can recall.
I didn’t claim that all rational persons wanted a loving relationship. I claimed that vast majority of persons wanted a loving relationship, and that it would be irrational for people with this goal to engage in activities that would prevent its satisfaction. I also claimed that those who engaged in necrophilia, bestiality, etc., probably (but not necessarily) were suffering from a mental disorder. I’m not sure if “being a john” strikes me as in the same category.
Do you believe prostitution does not have negative implications towards establishing/maintaining a healthy monogamous relationship ?
I don’t think it is necessarily the case, but I think it is by and large the case.
I'll restate the 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. "
The woman has children to support. Supporting children could include needing to pay their school fees, needing to feed then, needing to buy them new clothes, doctors fees ect.
The man realises that the woman has bills to pay. He does not know the extent of her financial situation, however he does assume that she would rather support her children by means other than prostitution.
I’m assuming that this is the only way the woman can think of to support her children, that other sources of potential financial help have been exhausted, etc. I’m also assuming that the only persons affected by the man’s decision is the man, the woman, and her children (i.e., that there are no spouses involved, that no promises are being broken, etc.) I’m assuming that both parties take proper protection against STD transmission and pregnancy. I’m assuming that both parties treat the other decently. Under such circumstances, I think both parties act in a morally permissible manner.
Now, suppose that the situation is as described above, except that instead of the transaction being one of sexual gratification for money, the woman is offering manual labor, say cleaning the man’s house. Suppose she really doesn’t want to clean the houses of strange men, but she has children to support, etc. etc. Do you think that this modified transaction is morally permissible? If so, what is the essential difference between the two transactions in virtue of which you find the first morally objectionable and the second permissible?
Just Curious, does ignorance excuse immoral behaviour ?
Depends on the case. If I believe (wrongly) that you are about to strike someone with a baseball bat, and I have good evidence for this belief (e.g., a trusted source of mine claims you are out for revenge, etc.), then I think I’m justified in knocking you down and taking the baseball bat. Of course, if I had no good reason for knocking you down and taking the baseball bat, doing so would be immoral. In this case, my ignorance does excuse what would otherwise be immoral behavior. In short, you can’t separate the moral evaluation of an agent’s actions from consideration of that agent’s motivations.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI haven't read "Breakdown of Will", which is, I believe, the book you're referring to. I'm familiar with Ainslie's data from other cog. sci. sources, however, and they're certainly relevant to understanding apparently akratic action. There are often times when I do refrain from drinking that last shot of Glenfiddich. What would Ainslie say about such cases? Is it simply a matter of my preudential desires being motivationally more efficacious? What further factors determine whether the consummatory or prudential desires win the motivational "tug of war", when the time frame isn't relevant?
Hi Bbarr,
A very interest take on akrasia--"the Glenfiddich Glitch"--is provided by George Ainslie's hyperbolic discounting theory (book: "Breakdown of Will"😉, with which you may already be familiar. It posits that our preferences are inherently unstable, that people devalue a future event at different rates, depending on how distant it is. Sup ...[text shortened]... is a motivational marketplace in which prudential and consummatory desires jockey for supremacy.