That’s not my understanding of pragmatism. Pragmatism doesn’t imply that moral concern must stop at the boundaries of one’s immediate community; it grounds moral solidarity in the capacity to extend sympathy and imagination beyond our familiar circles. In fact, some pragmatists like Rorty (a neopragmatist and an eccentric thinker, sure) would say that the task is to steadily expand our notion of solidarity.

The problem I have here is that no one actually believes such a thing. No one says, "Oh they are butchering babies and raping women over in Xylonia, but that's not a problem at all because harm isn't really evil." — Leontiskos

Sure, but people do use emotive language to describe atrocities, that’s true. And it is not intrinsic to pragmatism to describe actions like this as 'not a problem at all'. Rather, we can say about such acts that people are expressing a deep-seated human reaction to horror and a commitment to moral solidarity. Such acts are precisely what we do not want to see in the kind of society we hope to inhabit. The rubric 'evil' need not be employed.

A democratic, lowest-common denominator approach does not favor human rights, especially insofar as human rights would be extended to minorities. — Leontiskos

Interesting. Certainly seems an accurate refection of populism.

The problem with these sorts of arguments is that they amount to the following: <If we cannot know the truth with certainty, then we should try to know the truth in a less certain way. Therefore we don't need the concept of truth at all>. The "therefore" is non sequitur. Just because one wants to approximate X rather than perfectly identify X, it in no way follows that one can do away with the notion of X altogether. Approximating X requires a notion of X.

This so-called "pragmatic approach to morality" is just a variant of that form of reasoning. In this case the point can be seen by recognizing that forms of negative utilitarianism (such as the reduction of harm) are no less committed to moral truths than any other theory. One who wishes to reduce harm is committed to the truth that harm is morally evil, and this is true regardless of what they end up meaning by 'harm'. — Leontiskos

Yes, I think this reasoning has some merit, although I find terms like 'morally evil' too close to a classical religious language I don’t use, I’d probably prefer cruelty or unjustifiable harm. I guess my response your point would be that in my understanding when a pragmatist tries to reduce harm, they're not appealing to an objective fact that harm is 'evil', they're expressing a shared sense that cruelty and suffering are things society wants to avoid. So moral claims, for a pragmatist, come from our communal values and practices, not from some deeper metaphysical truth.

Which is where yoru criticism below might come in; does this lead to a banal morality? It's a fair criticism, but I'm not sure the inference is accurate.

What is at stake in (classically) liberal thinking is not a special "pragmatism" or an abandonment of moral realism, but rather a democratic, lowest-common denominator approach to morality and politics. The principle is not that moral truth is abandoned, but rather that only the moral truths that the vast majority of the population agrees with are to be enshrined publicly. — Leontiskos

Interesting. What is the substantive difference between a lowest-common denominator approach to morality and a legitimate approach; can you provide an example to give me a better notion of what you have in mind? Would the 10 commandments be an example of lowest common denominator approach (an accessible framework for the masses)?

I and my quasi-Marxian critical theory buddies will question the diagnosis, saying that depression is a rational response to conditions of alienation and atomisation, made to seem normal by ideologies like the work ethic, the performance society, and so on---and then link all that back to social and economic relations. — Jamal

I’d probably agree with this too. Of course, given that we can’t change society short of a revolution (and then there’s the question of what to do the morning after, as Žižek might ask), you're right that we probably can’t do much more than offer people pills and talk therapy: the pragmatic responses (but not solutions) to being stuck in a traumatic world we can’t alter. I guess it's a harm reduction approach. Perhaps theism is just the other side of the pills and talk therapy coin.

If only Peterson really strove to re-enchant the world. — Pierre-Normand

Who knows what he's been trying to do? I think he might be a misunderstood atheist with a poor capcity to explain himself.

While Rorty's idea of replacing ideals of truth and objectivity with ideals of solidarity didn't lack merit — Pierre-Normand

I quite like it.

(Rorty had a good rejoinder against charges of relativism, though.) — Pierre-Normand

Indeed and it's easy to get him wrong, I suspect. As I understand him, Rorty argued that he was never sayign that “anything goes.” He accepts that we lack absolute, universal foundations, but he insisted we can still distinguish better from worse beliefs within our communities and conversations.

My position right now is maybe something like a negatively teleological virtue ethics. I'm here to criticize ideas that seek to frustrate the telos of human flourishing, as I believe Bob's do, even if I don't have my own settled conception of what that human flourishing is. — Jamal

This would seem to be a tricky place to occupy, and I sympathise.

And settling on a conception of human flourishing is something I suspect is impossible in what I regard as a broken and chaotic human world. — Jamal

:fire:

And one might argue that they matter all the more in broken and chaotic circumstances. How else do we wrest some control or peace?

MacIntyre is right that modernity has produced people who, when they talk about ethics, don't know what they're talking about---and since I don't exclude myself from that, I have to be careful---and Adorno is right that while we might be able to see the sources of our norms and values, we cannot in our present circumstances find rational justification for them, such is the lack of access to a coherent socially embedded tradition. — Jamal

Interesting. Does anyone know how to talk about ethics? Might not a redeemable form of post-modernism be the answer? I often think we are in a transition period. In our thinking, we seem done with modernity. There are powerful nostalgia projects everywhere, seeking to get us back to a golden era before things went astray. It’s why we now have folk as diverse as Jordan Peterson and John Vervaeke flogging retro solutions to our problems, generally talking about the need to re-enchant the world. And every second new philosopher seems to be a Thomist.

The need to give voice to suffering is the condition of all truth. — Jamal

I watched an Australian interview with Nick Cave yesterday; he said that to be human is to suffer. Not an original take, sure, but one can't disagree (or help qualifying with "some suffer much more than others". Antinatalism lacks ambition. The most obvious antidote to this would be to blow up the world, destroy all life, and prevent all future suffering. Why is this not postulated as a heroic solution to all our problems?

In lieu of this, might it not be that we need a pragmatic approach to morality, given we are unable to get to truth or even agree upon axioms? Why let the perfect be the enemy of the good? I would take it as a given that anything human is going to be limited, imperfect, tentative, regardless of the era. Could we not build an ethical system acknowledging this, and put aside notions of perfection and flawless reasoning, focusing instead on what works to reduce harm? Just don't ask me how. :wink:

Anyhow, if seeing gender dysphoria as a pathology amounts to "denying someone's identity," wouldn't this mean that sex actually is deeply essential to identity in precisely the way essentialist claim? I suppose this would go along with the sentiment that even if a treatment for gender dysphoria existed it would not be desirable, or that it should be removed from the DSM. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm not a gender theorist. Here’s my formulation (and I’ll let you have the last word, since this isn’t a productive conversation, much as I’ve enjoyed it). Trans people exist and seem to have existed across cultures and throughout history. Empirical evidence consistently shows that their mental health deteriorates when they are forced to live contrary to their gender identity. And they are more likely to thrive if they are able to transition. The most ethical and pragmatic response, then, is to accept people as they identify. In most cases doing so doesn't undermine society and it greatly improves individual wellbeing and social inclusion.

You don't think parents who see gender dysphoria as a mental illness as being capable of truly or fully loving their children? Would this apply to something like autism too? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, many of them do. Maybe I could tweak my wording.

But the proposition was that a stranger like Bob Ross would deny the identity of people he’s never met on the basis that they have a 'perversion' he doesn't understand. That's not parenting and I don’t think that counts as loving.

Note also that abuse is frequently perpetrated by people who say things like, “I’m doing this because I love you.” Having worked in the area of domestic violence I've heard this many times.

So I see Compassionism not as an ungrounded belief but as the minimal metaphysical condition for an intelligible world: if meaning is possible, some form of care must already be operative. The Ouroboros image you mention captures this beautifully - yes, suffering and healing seem entwined, but the loop only closes through response, not indifference. Without compassion, the circle breaks into chaos. — Truth Seeker

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Food for thought. I’ve generally held that my response to life is more of an aesthetic, emotivist one. I avoid systems and diligent rationality. The problem with this is that you mostly remove yourself from the discourse. What I have is how I feel about things; intuition and hardly a robust basis with which to convince others.

Despite this I find myself arguing with other members who seem to think they have an objective basis for their beliefs. Do you see yourself as a moral realist of a sort?

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.
He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell.
You must make your choice.
Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. — Colo Millz

My response to Lewis was always that he missed the 4th option: myth.

But I appreciate your response. Maybe we can talk about other things some time.

Really? This seems to me one of hte most potent and obvious oddities of humanity. There are plenty of people whos lifestyles I think are damaging (to themselves/those around them or society at large) and I think it s perverse that they defend their life style (funnily enough, plenty of gender theory types run along these lines - I don't suggest that being interested in gender causes one to be immoral, but I do think immoral people tend to be drawn to the more liberal communities abouts). That says absolutely nothing, whatsoever, about how i feel about them as a human. — AmadeusD

I can kind of see your point. But I guess I would hold that if someone is gay, this is a more significant part of their identity, and of a quite differnt nature, than the drug consumption of someone who uses. And I would consider neither of them a perversion. I don't think I would compare the two things. Denying someone’s drug use doesn’t seem to me to be the same thing as denying their homosexuality. Is homosexuality damaging to themselves or society at large? I wouldn't have thought so. Drug use? Not always, but often.

Interesting response, thanks. But I'm still not sure why Christianity was convincing to you.

To attempt a more sophisticated answer to your original question about "Christian context", I think where I live (in the US) right now what we seem to be witnessing is the elimination of classical liberalism as a viable politics any more, and so what we are left with is the battleground between the two other ideologies, conservatism and leftism. Biden, for example, governed from the left. — Colo Millz

I'm not sure “left” and “right” have much meaning these days in politics. Isn’t what we’re living in really corporatism, with huge companies and their owners siphoning up the wealth of the land? I thought Biden was a centrist. Trump isn’t a conservative; he may be an authoritarian, right-wing statist, but he doesn’t seem interested in conserving many traditions. Australia, where I am, is still a liberal and generally progressive country, although we currently have a Labor government that’s somewhat to the right. I don’t think most voters have much understanding or interest in liberalism or of left–right politics; it’s seems to be driven by emotion and how they belvie a party or candidate will affect them financially.

Wow, you cover a lot of eclectic views there.

The trans thing I am much less clear about - I am not particularly a fan of trans women playing rugby with the girls, for example, I don't think that's fair. — Colo Millz

I don’t support all trans activist demands. But I think the issues of sports, prisons, and toilets are relatively minor and are matters we can negotiate and develop procedural responses to.

I have some fairly strong conservative leanings. For me the story of the Bible and the kerygma of the "Christ event" is one of the most extraordinary, unexpected, exciting things to ever exist in history. — Colo Millz

Why do you choose to believe this story over Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism's extraordinary stories?

I come from a fairly progressive country and the Christian tradition I grew up in here is inclusive and welcoming to gay and trans people - right wing anti-modernist Christianity is less familiar to me. I am not sure if Caputo has written on gay or trans rights, but his history suggests an identification with marginalized oppressed groups.

What is your position on homosexuality and how do you see it in a Christian context?

Nicely written response.

I am reminded of David Bentley Hart's quip on his blog:

among the fundamentalists I include not just the white evangelical fundamentalists, I mean a lot of the Thomists I know. They might not be six day creationists, but they read the Bible as a set of propositional algorithms for constructing social reality. They don’t read it as the inspired occasion of reading that requires interpretation, tact, speculative daring, and the sense that there is the law of love, and the law of the spirit, without which the text slays.

Of course, conservative Christians are often critical of Hart because they disagree with his understanding of the Gospels as a call to inclusion and diversity, not that they would frame it this way... .

What we might need in these discussions are philosophically adroit theists who are not aligned with reactionary, anti-enlightenment projects. Ultimately these debates usually end up as tedious theism-versus-atheism worldview arguments.

:up:

MacIntyre argues that all modern moral philosophies that drop teleology have ended up here, without always knowing it. And the problem is that emotivism cannot provide any rational justification for moral claims, expressing only preferences. It is not open to abuse because it makes no substantive claims that can be abused. — Jamal

I guess @Banno would probably point to something like Nussbaum’s capability framework as a more useful approach.

I was an emotivist for some time. And I tended to view the art of rational justification as a kind of game; something we do within certain conversational contexts. The source of most of our beliefs is emotional or affective, with reasoning supplied post hoc to make them appear coherent or justified or part of theism's plan. I think emotivism may be returning. Perhaps it would be beneficial if people stopped debating right and wrong and instead understood themselves as having an aesthetic, affective relationship to the world. :wink:

The solution, arguably, is not to discard neo-Aristotelian ideas of essence, but to show how it can be used well, setting out a more humane, and more inclusive teleology—like one that shows how the telos of a human being is fulfilled in relationships of love and mutual flourishing, which can take many forms. I want to say that abandoning the concept of human nature and purpose because it's open to misuse is to surrender the very ground on which we can build a progressive vision of the good life. — Jamal

So, does this make you a foundationalist? Do you think, for instance, Rorty’s neopragmatic view of morality is limited because it doesn’t rely on objective moral truths or universal principles? If all things are socially constructed, contingent conversations, then why do anything in particular?

You can be loving and kind to people while also recognizing that they have an illness that, if you truly love them, you would make reasonable efforts to cure. — Bob Ross

I don’t believe one can be appropriately loving to someone whose identity one denies and considers perversion. I don’t think there’s anyway we can resolve this one. The gap comes before your use of Aristotle - it’s between your version of theism and my version of atheism. All we can do ultimately to attempt to settle this is vote in a way that best supports our views.

I disagree with this. I think what the Christian conservative use of neo-Aristotelian ideas of essence shows is that teleological frameworks are powerful and thus open to abuse. It's what makes them philosophically substantive, in contrast to the emotivism criticized by MacIntyre. — Jamal

Fair enough. I've had a similar conversation with some Thomists sover the years.

Me, I'm definitely not on the fence. I'll make a post about it, maybe. — Jamal

Please do.

Which leads me to ask - what questions of an urgent / topical nature today can be best addressed, or perhaps just effectively addressed, with philosophy? Are there discussions on subjects now that will seem just as urgent in 15 years as discussions of AI have proven to be? I would love to hear some predictions, or be pointed towards urgent current topics in philosophy. — Jeremy Murray

I don’t think any question requires philosophy, and certainly not if it’s to be settled by an educative political process. Seems to me all matters are settled by the ongoing conversations societies have with each other. These are, of course, based on philosophically derived notions, but not in a systematic or deliberate way. And our values will change as the older folk die off and the younger, more progressive types dominate (they in turn will be the conservative fogies of tomorrow).

I have to confess to not caring about AI. There’s a lot of alarmist verbiage written about it. My view is that any reading or tentative understandings of the matter will do nothing to manage or deal with any changes coming.

Canadian philosopher Joseph Heath noted on his substack that many of his colleagues seem to be 'sitting out' many fraught contemporary subjects — Jeremy Murray

I'm a big fan of sitting out controversies and pseudo problems. Many either go away or are integrated into culture as the old folk and their values die out.

Isn’t this the point where many theists refer to the Fall, human imperfection, and, if they’re particularly ardent, Satan? Which gets me wondering: Is evil unnatural? Is Satan the god of the unnatural?

I agree that the record of our species reveals both tendencies in abundance: tenderness and atrocity, rescue and massacre. — Truth Seeker

I often think this is like an Ouroboros....without atrocity we wouldn't discover self-sacrifice and healing. Can it be that both are necessary? (Personally I don't think so but it scans superficially).

I'm going to ask some tougher questions and I'm not intending to sound rude. :pray:

So when I say compassion is the more natural relational core, I don’t mean it is the statistically dominant behaviour, but that it reveals the more fundamental truth of coexistence. — Truth Seeker

But how do you demonstrate this? Isn't this just a statement of your belief rather than an evidence based claim?

In this light, Compassionism isn’t the claim that humans are compassionate, but that compassion names the deepest possibility of what it means to be. The conqueror and the caregiver are both human, but only the latter manifests what humanity is capable of when it fully hears its own ontological vocation. — Truth Seeker

But that only holds if you've already decided that compassion is better than conquest. That sounds more like a statement rooted in a nominal Christian value system. So how can you actually demonstrate that compassion is better? What makes it superior, philosophically or practically?

To me, you can reach your conclusion if you begin with the axiom that human wellbeing should be our goal and build from there. But that’s a choice you have to consciously make. I don’t think it’s self-evident.

Can we agree on this (notwithstanding the semantic disputes)??? — Bob Ross

I'm not an essentialist, and I tend to see notions of 'male' and 'female' as evolving and changing over time. As I’ve said, I'm not a gender theorist. What matters most is recognising that trans people are here to stay. We need to learn how to live with this reality, not suppress it or label it deviant, just as much of the world has come to accept homosexuality as part of the spectrum of normal human experience.

Sex is a creative act, it’s not limited to procreation. It can be a flight of fancy, a search for pleasure, a quest for meaning, a release of tension, intimacy, a form of recreation, a duty, even a way of avoiding responsibility. I'm not going to put a fence around it.

I don’t mean that ethics emerges as a factual property within Being, but that in the event of encounter - when another’s vulnerability impinges on me - — Truth Seeker

Thanks for the clarification.

To put it less abstractly: when we encounter pain - human or non-human - we do not first deduce an ethical rule; we are already moved. That movement of concern is the disclosure of Being’s relational core. — Truth Seeker

Certainly, this seems true in the cultures I know. But what about cultures that appear deaf to the suffering of tribes not their own, those who cheerfully kill children? That too seems an authentic expression of human behaviour across millennia. Is it possible to determine which is the more natural relational core: the urge to conquer, maim, and vanquish, or the call for empathy? I’ve always assumed that with humans, it could go either way.

Isn't all human discourse a contingent product of cultural and linguistic practices? Everything exists within layers of constructs and frameworks. Human rights remain a meaningful and useful frame until some other construct supersedes them.

:up: Food for thought.

I am getting the feeling that most people on this board have very little understanding or familiarity with trans gender viewpoints, culture, and activism. I've been studying them for the last two years, so I admit my awareness of the subject is painted by that. It appears I am unlikely to have a good conversation on these boards as people appear very in the dark or have a very limited take on the issue. That's ok, philosophy has not been in sync with the culture for some time now, and its not surprising that a modern day philosophical issue like this is not being properly tackled here. — Philosophim

My view of this issue is untheorized and based on my experience knowing and working with numerous trans people, both men and women. I support most trans rights on the grounds of solidarity and the need to minimize harm and stigma. I’m not aligned with or aware of every activist claim, and I also recognize that trans people vary in their thinking. I’ve known some who reject gender theory entirely. Most of the trans people I’ve known come to their identity through personal experience rather than gender politics. Some are later influenced or radicalized by that politics, but it would be a mistake to assume activism shapes all trans identities. And I know you haven’t said that.

I broadly support all five rights you mentioned, except where specific circumstances make their application genuinely problematic. My main reservation concerns medical treatment for minors; I believe age, maturity, and clinical judgment must guide decisions, so point four would need qualifications around safeguarding and informed consent.

My position comes from both personal experience and ethical reasoning. Having worked with and known trans people, I’ve seen the distress caused by denying recognition or access to care. That distress may be “subjective,” but it is real and morally relevant, I woudl hold that reducing it is part of our responsibility to respect human dignity and autonomy.

I view being transgender not as a mental illness (as some do) but as a mode of human identity. Comparing it to schizophrenia or other delusional conditions misunderstands the nature of gender identity: it is not a pathology to be suppressed but a lived reality to be supported. I also find it interesting how some who do not support treatment of mental illness do support it for trans, probably because transphobia informs their view.

If we accept that gender identity is how people experince their selfhood, as something fundamental to a person’s being, then society shoudl facilitate and provide the means for trans people to live authentically and safely. That includes access to accurate identity documents, social recognition, protection from harm, and healthcare aligned with their needs.

Gender theory isn't relevant to my take on trans. My view is pragmatic. People have always identified and alwasy will identity as a gender different to mainstream expectation (I'm avoiding gender discourse here). We don’t need a metaphysical theory of gender to defend trans rights. What matters is whether our practices reduce suffering and allow people to live freely and without humiliation. Trans rights stand on the basic moral ground that they lessen cruelty and create space for self-determination. Moral progress depends on empathy and persuasion, not on appeals to absolute truth. I'd take the view that a decent society lets people define themselves without fear and measures dignity by the freedom to live honestly, not by an obedience to inherited categories.

Now, before anyone says, “But what if someone wants to identify as an air-conditioning manifold?” I would simply respond that such an identity lacks the historical depth and pragmatic grounding that give meaning to categories like gender. There’s no shared social context, language, or lived experience to make that identification useful.

Thank you very much for your excellent question. Levinas’s meontological move in Totality and Infinity is precisely what I had in mind when I spoke of the ethical and the ontological as “two inflections of the same opening.” For Levinas, ethics is first philosophy because it arises not within Being but before it - me ontos, beyond-Being. The face of the Other interrupts ontology’s self-enclosure; it calls me from a height I did not posit, demanding responsibility prior to any theoretical stance. In that sense, Levinas radicalizes Heidegger’s Geworfenheit (thrownness): I am not only thrown into Being but summoned beyond it.

Where I diverge slightly is in emphasis. Levinas’s meontology can sound like a complete rupture - an absolute outside to Being. I read it, rather, as the self-transcendence of Being itself, its capacity to exceed its own totalization through the ethical relation. In other words, the ethical call is not alien to ontology but its deepest disclosure: Being showing itself as vulnerable and relational. The “firstness” of ethics is not chronological or hierarchical but modal: the primordial tone of existence as care, exposure, and obligation. — Truth Seeker

Does this include non-human animals? Forgive me a few quesions as I find this difficult to follow - and I am unclear how ethics can arise in this way. Doesn't a capacity to describe ethics presuppose an account of what is?

What you have written also sounds highly abstract and metaphorical. How can one demonstrate that ethics is the “deepest disclosure” of Being?

Like I said before, you are presupposing that it is true that homosexual acts are not ‘morally corrupt’; and then based off of that saying it is not degenerate. I understand from your view that makes sense, but in mine it doesn’t because it is immoral (viz., ‘morally corrupt’). What we would need to discuss is why. — Bob Ross

Yes, I think this is the nub of it.

Would you say that homosexuality falls into this category because, in your view, God is against it? And does your reasoning come post hoc, have you used reason to shore up a religious view you already held?

The problem with reason, for me, is that although it's difficult to escape its use, rationality can be used to justify anything. In the end, it often comes down to whether one is convinced or not and that may be informed more by our affective judgements and intuition than reasoning.

Would it be fair to say that you have an almost Thomist veneration of reason?

Calling people degenerate is bigotry.

Even if it really is degenerate? This is the basic, colloquial definition of bigotry:

“obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.” — Bob Ross

As I said, I was going to leave you with the last word on this, but I wanted to correct something. You are right. I misspoke - my sentence above is wrong. One can presumably use “degenerate” to accurately describe some people’s activities.

Of course, I would not include gay people or most sexual acts, like fellatio, as you do. Calling gay people and their preferences morally corrupt or less than human, which “degeneracy” implies, would qualify as bigotry.

Do you think engaging in BDSM, e.g., is not sexually degenerate? If not, then what would count as sexually degenerate under your view and would any concession of the possibility of sexual degeneracy be considered bigotry on your view? — Bob Ross

I’m not someone who reaches for “degenerate” as a descriptive term in most serious discussions. What consenting adults do is not my business. One might be able to apply the term upon the actions and lives of Trump or Epstein.

I'd like to start a thread on disagreement.

It seems way to convenient to label your most prominent opposition in America as all writing bigotry by noting that homosexuality, transgenderism, and sexually degenerate behavior is bad (for those participating in it). — Bob Ross

Calling people degenerate is bigotry. To use your terminology, this much is 'obviously true'. If I said theists are delusional and need to be cured of their magical thinking, that would be the same thing.

Notice that you didn’t engage with what I said because it is obviously true. A sex organ is not designed to be inserted in an anus; even if you believe that it is morally permissible to do so. The fact you resort to name-calling as an evasion technique instead of rebuttling my position is saddening. — Bob Ross

Notice that you haven't presented an 'argument' to refute. You made a belief claim that you haven’t demonstrated to be true, and I pointed this out. First, there’s the problem that you haven’t demonstrated that any part of us is “designed,” and you’ve also failed to make the case that a sex organ is not designed to be inserted into an anus, you’ve merely stated an opinion. We use our parts of our bodies for any number of things. And you never answered my question: when a man puts his penis in a woman’s mouth, is that also a violation of design according to you? Or using fingers for typing? Who decides what counts as a violation of usage and who decides what counts as design?

Now, even if we take a neutral view that human bodies evolved over time to have certain functions, that still doesn’t amount to an argument against using a penis for anal sex. People can use their bodies in surprising, eccentric, and creative ways to experience pleasure — from dance to sex. Who gets to decide what counts as “unnatural”? In most cases, if it can be done, it's natural.

I don’t believe in re-educating dissenters. I am fine with free speech; however, it is commonly accepted that people who are extremely mentally (or/and physically) unwell need desperate help and they may be confined for a while for their own safety to themselves (like suicidal people for example). Should everyone who has a mental illness be put in a camp? No. — Bob Ross

This is disingenuous. Comparing someone who might be suicidal or violent (or 'extremely mentally unwell") to someone who is gay or trans is just a case of you applying a label of mental illness on a phenomenon what you dislike or are afraid of. It would be no different to me claiming that Christians who are deluded into thinking there’s a magic sky wizard should be given counselling to remove their faith and become “normal.”

Wouldn’t you agree that being homosexual or transgender is a result of socio-psychological disorders or/and biological developmental issues? — Bob Ross

No, that seems to be another bigoted position.

Then you are, in fact, labeling your opposition as bigoted instead of refuting their position. I could easily say the same thing about your views: it doesn’t help further the conversation. — Bob Ross

Not really. If you say gay and tans people are deviant, you are saying bigoted things. You are presenting a moral judgment founded in bias and stigma. It's textbook bigotry.

You do understand that the hugely popular conservative view right now in America is that transgenderism is a mental illness—right? You keep pretending like this is a crazy, outlandish, bigoted, and ‘transphobic’ position to take; and keep straw manning the position with name-calling and baseless assumptions to evade engaging in the discussion. Acknowledging that something is a mental illness does not entail that one hates people who have it….do you really not believe that??? — Bob Ross

That's just an example of argumentum ad populum. I'm sure as many Americans probably think the world is only 6,000 years old. Who cares how many think something? And by the way, I didn't say that these pejorative views were "outlandish" or "crazy" I said they were bigoted. I am well aware of positions held by some in the Right. And I don't live in America.

I’m not evading anything, you’re simply failing to offer any coherent reasoning for a position. Saying “the penis isn’t designed for anal sex” isn’t an argument; it’s just an unsupported assertion. If that’s the level of reasoning being offered, what exactly is there to engage with? Pointing out the lack of evidence or logic isn’t evasion.

And there’s a broader problem: conflating anal sex with homosexuality is primitive. Many gay men do not like or practice anal sex, and there are lesbians for whom this framing is entirely irrelevant. Your view on lesbians? Reducing homosexuality to a particular sex act is a crude simplification. The point people have been making (and that you seem to be evading) is that anal sex is a sexual act that transcends sexual preference. You cannot use it to portray gay people as somehow inherently 'against nature' or whatever it might be.

Anyway, I'll let you have the last word since this seems to be going nowhere. I suspect that we don't have enough in common to build a productive conversation. I have nothing against you as a person and wish you well. I have no doubt that you are sincere and doing the best you can with your thinking and I would say the same applies to me. I’d be interested in a thread soem time about how we can have conversations with people who don’t share basic axioms or frameworks, and how we can develop a society that allows for pluralism.

you didn't even try to answer the question, because you know I am right that the sex organs are not designed to be put in the anus (irregardless if you think men will tend to do it or tend to like to do it). — Bob Ross

One's penis can go anywhere one chooses (with consent). But anal sex is not compulsory, right? No one is saying it is, although it's a common heterosexual activity. And a question of 'design' has not been demonstrated. A penis fits inside holes. Are you also against sticking a penis in a woman's mouth? Where do you get the idea that any particular kind of sex act is somehow wrong?

A bigotry charge is a serious accusation: why do you think people who disagree with your political views are all bigots? — Bob Ross

I'm not saying you are a bigot i said what you wrote was bigoted. But you may well be a bigot too.

Notice your language:

1. Sexually deviant, homosexual, and transgender behaviors and practices — Bob Ross

I think we should have government programs for studying transgenderism to cure it and they should have programs that help transgenders be cured — Bob Ross

Both of these read like bigotry. "Let's cure those deviants."

I don’t support Stalin: that’s a blatant straw man. — Bob Ross

I didn’t say you support Stalin, I compared that re-education approach to a Stalinist one. I think that’s fair; he was big on re-educating dissenters. What you think about Stalin is irrelevant to my point.

Wouldn’t you agree that being homosexual or transgender is a result of socio-psychological disorders or/and biological developmental issues? — Bob Ross

No, and this is another bigoted position.

Do you think a part of our biological programming is to insert a sex organ into an organ designed to defecate? — Bob Ross

I don’t know you to establish how seriously you offer this, but that sentence reads like something a child would write, surely? I can't help but feel some compassion for you that your religion appears to have made you so reductive and homophobic.

I could be wrong but from what I read here my view would be that it might benefit you to stop hiding behind theories, metaphysics, and fundamentalist religion, and get out into the real world. Spend time with lots of different kinds of people for a few years. Maybe some real-world exposure will help you understand the diversity and beauty in people who differ from your prescribed notions. And that perhaps what needs to change is you, not them.

Either way, it may be that we don’t share enough foundational axioms to have a fruitful discussion. All I really wanted to do here was point out that your outlook looks bigoted on this matter and (since hating on trans people is a popular sport for many) to express a different view from yours. Job done.

That said, I’m glad you feel confident expressing your opinions here for us all to explore. It’s interesting to see what comes out in response, Perhaps it reveals a little more about the true nature of some of our members.

Thanks for articulating your views further. To me they seem to be founded in bigotry, but no doubt you think I’m wrong too, so I guess we’re a microcosm of our times.

Re abortion: I'm not concerned where life begins.

The issue for me is that no one has the right to use another person’s body without their consent, even to preserve life. For the pregnant, this means a person is not morally obligated to sustain a fetus, regardless of whether it is considered a “person,” because a right to life does not include the right to forcibly use someone else’s body. And this principle applies universally: just as no one is required to donate a kidney or remain attached to life-support to save another, no one can be compelled to maintain a pregnancy, making abortion permissible on the basis of bodily autonomy and self-ownership.

For you, then, what are the ‘major issues’ related to transgenderism? — Bob Ross

Well, unlike you, I don’t have any “major issues” with trans people. It’s pragmatic: social policies can negotiate this one. Let them be. Are there some assholes and bizarre activists among them? Sure. But the same can be said of Christianity, Islam and almost every identity.

Your idea that we can “cure” them seems antediluvian or Stalinist. Let’s cure gay people too, huh?

Do you think gay folk need to be cured of their homosexuality?

Do you get your moral views from a particular interpretation of Christianity?

My thoughts are that all you're doing is cloaking bigotry with philosophy to give it the appearance of intellectual depth, as part of a hateful and destructive reactionary political and religious movement. — Jamal

There's a bit of this around these days. Metaphysics is a good place to hide.

Liberalism in America tends to want the social and legal acceptance of:

1. Sexually deviant, homosexual, and transgender behaviors and practices;
2. The treatment of people relative to what they want to be as opposed to what they are (e.g., gender affirmation, putting the preferred gender on driver’s licenses, allowing men to enter female bathrooms, allowing men to play in female sports, etc.);
3. No enforceable immigration policies;
4. Murdering of children in the womb; — Bob Ross

From my perspective your language seems bigoted and cruel. But I do understand that people think this way.

I think progressives around the world would probably want:

1) For individuals to live free of bigotry and for homosexuality and trans people to be able to live as they want.

2) A woman's right to have bodily autonomy and self-determination.

I would agree with these too. I do believe in immigration policies, so let’s set that one aside.

I’m not a theorist, nor do I much care for the curlicues of argumentation about essentialism, sex, or whatever else people bring into this debate.

At its core, the trans issue is a matter of pragmatism. Trans people exist, have always existed, and will continue to exist, denying them serves no one. Why not simply accept this reality?

No doubt there are ways of regulating and incorporating trans people into society that work for most. Minor issues, such as prisons, toilets, or sport, can be resolved and are distractions from the deeper question of identity. I'm not interested in how we choreograph prisons or sport to accommodate an evolving understanding of gender. Let's leave those to social policy processes.

What do you have against trans people? Is it ultimately that you believe they go against God?

So I ask for examples of these dangerous questions it's the purpose of philosophy to ask and address. — Ciceronianus

I see what you’re saying: what counts as a dangerous question in one country might not be in another. Here in Australia, no one much cares about God or gods. You’re rarely going to find controversy about teaching evolution or privileging science over religious dogma.

But there are enough questions (often with essentialist themes) which seem to provoke antipathy. What is a woman? What is gender? Is taxation theft, or is it the price we pay for civilisation? Is morality objective or just a matter of custom? What is racism? What counts as true? Plenty of wars have been started in pursuit of answers to these sorts of questions.

But an AI Nietzsche without hormones and a fragile sense of masculinity won't need to overcompensate so much...

What will we make of... an AI Nietzsche? — Banno

I wonder if their reading will be existentialist or post-modern. No doubt we'll be able to pick.

Just checking - does this work the other way? Would it also be naive and idealistic to think a person of high status could correctly measure or evaluate the words and actions of a person of low status.
— Tom Storm
This is moot, because the person of higher status is automatically correct by virtue of their higher status. — baker

I don’t think this is moot. In my experience, low-status people can and do question those of higher status. And changes may result.

Look, I'm not an elitist. I'm interested in having a measure of peace of mind and not becoming cynical and jaded in the face of injustice.

If you look at popular religion/spirituality, as well as popular psychology, the advice usually goes in the direction that the ordinary person (who doesn't have the means to revenge themselves) should embrace a type of amoralist, anomic stance where they are quietly okay with whatever happens or is done to them (or others). Morality doesn't seem to be something everyone could afford. — baker

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

I'm not sure I share this understanding. I guess I'd need to understand this through specific examples rather than abstract principles.