1. Homosexuality is a natural deviation. — Agustino
I accept 1 and deny 2. Therefore there is no possibility of a naturalistic fallacy whatsoever. It is you who is seeing a naturalistic fallacy there, because you are the one making it. Out of your irrational fear that there could be an argument showing homosexuality is wrong (and how dare there be, because a priori you have decided there's nothing wrong with homosexuality), you want to deny even this possibility. But you can't. Because to do it, you have to establish a necessary connection between 1 and 2. And if you manage to do that, then you yourself commit the naturalistic fallacy. — Agustino
This is the naturalistic fallacy, Agustino. The idea there is a such thing as "deviation" in human nature, as that must a priori, suppose what humans are meant to be. Like any trait of human, being gay is not a "natural deviation," it is just something some humans are. — TheWillowOfDarkness
G.E. Moore, David Hume, Philippa Foot et al. all disagree with this :)Where the naturalistic fallacy is defined IS NOT in making the explicit claim than some state of humanity is better than another, but rather in the basic understanding of something before we even begin to make any explicit comments on its worth. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Bingo. These are your blind spots. You assume these to be necessary. Why? Because you seek to justify your own personal sensibilities.The form of argument you are considering might show homosexuality to be wrong is impossible. Nothing about the existence of gay people would ever show being gay was moral or immoral. — TheWillowOfDarkness
One cannot be the naturalistic fallacy - you have to point to one of the three versions of the naturalistic fallacy and tell me which one is it. Don't make up your own definitions. These are the definitions that philosophers have used through history, so if you make a claim using their language, please defend it using commonly accepted definitions instead of special pleading.Since 1 is the naturalistic fallacy, this doesn't help you on bit. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Bingo. These are your blind spots. You assume these to be necessary. Why? Because you seek to justify your own personal sensibilities. — Agustino
No... it is necessary because of the distinction of "is" and "ought." No observation of an empirical state is a moral justification. Logically, the "natural" arguments you are so proud of examining do not form an ethical argument. — TheWillowOfDarkness
This is wrong. The natural explanation accepts that gay people are inevitable and necessary, as I've argued in response to BC.The problem is not that that you are claiming a person ought to be some way, Agustino. Rather it is the very terms of the discourse you are using don't accept that gay people are a state which make sense for humans. — TheWillowOfDarkness
This is wrong. The natural explanation accepts that gay people are inevitable and necessary, as I've argued in response to BC. — Agustino
There are plenty of ethical arguments made on the grounds of existing states. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Rather, it is that it holds they don't make sense, for, supposedly, they do not fit what makes a human (and so are "deviants," as opposed to merely other humans with a different trait). — TheWillowOfDarkness
That's exactly what it holds. Gay people don't just make sense as a inevitable occurrence, Agustino. They make sense as humans. They are not "deviant" humans because they are gay. — Agustino
That's not deriving an "ought" for "is." It describing and ought expressed in an is. Morality is not coming out of existence, as your naturalistic nonsense proclaims. It is immanent within it. When we look at, for example, whether being gay is moral or immoral, we may examine states of the world for any relevant information, as we may do for any question about the morality of an action. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Anything we find though, as ethical important not because it is "natural" — TheWillowOfDarkness
It means understanding it amounts to knowing it makes sense, that it not in conflict with what is logical, what is appropriate, what is to be expected, of the world. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Sure. So what? I never said the opposite. — "
Yep -> deriving an "ought" (ethics) from a set of "is"'s (facts) — Agustino
Yes, it is not in conflict with what is expected of the world. I agree. Neither does my theory say that it is in conflict — Agustino
My point with "immanence" was to point out how ethical significance is an expression of states of the world (i.e. an "is" which has (im)moral significance), rather than something determined by states of the world (i.e."ought" derived form "is" ). We might, indeed, say your natural theory has nothing to do with immanence. — TheWillowOfDarkness
That's the problem. You treated ethical significance as if it was something defined form an outside itself (i.e. (Im)moral by "nature," by the "is"), rather than understanding it to be an immanent expression of some states of existence (i.e. some "nature" is moral or immoral ). — TheWillowOfDarkness
That's because they are.You literally said the opposite TWO POSTS ago (not to mention all the other ones before that which were expressing the same idea), when you insisted my arguments about (im)moral states of existence were a case of deriving an "ought" for an "is." — TheWillowOfDarkness
We have description of ethical significance (ought) expressed by states of the world (is). It is the exact opposite of deriving an "ought" from an "is." — TheWillowOfDarkness
You are conflating "deviant" with "natural deviation". The meanings are different - the former has a moral meaning, the latter has a purely descriptive meaning.Rather it is question of whether the understanding IS in conflict. And it is. It considers gay people don't make sense as humans. It holds them to be "Other," to be "deviant." — TheWillowOfDarkness
It might not say gay people are in conflict with what makes sense for humans, but it understands them to be. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Of course the "ought" is inside the "is", otherwise how the fuck can you derive it from it? Again this is nonsense. Why is it impossible to derive an "is" from an "ought"??? Precisely because the "ought" is in the "is" and not the other way around. But I don't need to make this statement, because to begin with you are going along the wrong lines, and your thinking lacks rigor and clarity. — Agustino
You are conflating "deviant" with "natural deviation". The meanings are different - the former has a moral meaning, the latter has a purely descriptive meaning. — Agustino
When someone tries to define an "ought" from an "is," they attempt to define ethics in terms of existence. Something is, supposedly, good or bad because it exists. — TheWillowOfDarkness
It's an intellectual operation. Without the intellect, no "ought" can be derived. It may be lurking among the "is", but it doesn't exist in the same way that the "is" does. That's why it requires the intellect to reveal it.This is nonsensical. If the ought is "in" the "is" and, so to speak, already there, no-one is deriving anything. The ought is expressed on its own terms and doesn't need any justification from the "is" at all. When the "ought" is in the "is," there is no deriving work to do. We only need to derive when what we are looking for isn't present. — TheWillowOfDarkness
No, this is what you think. I never said this, nor do any of my statements imply this.The point of "natural deviation" is to mark being gay as something unusual,something strange, for a human — TheWillowOfDarkness
Well, even in statistics, what is deviant, is being defined in relation to what is expected (a mean value for example). — Πετροκότσυφας
In which case "deriving" is irrelevant. Ethics doesn't require it. Understanding it doesn't require it, for the moment we pick-up on ethical expression in our intellect, we have it. We have no extra step to take. We just see the good or bad thing as it is. "Deriving" is useless, unnecessary and doing absolutely no work in accounting for ethics.It's an intellectual operation. Without the intellect, no "ought" can be derived. It may be lurking among the "is", but it doesn't exist in the same way that the "is" does. That's why it requires the intellect to reveal it. — Agustino
This is the "Othering" I'm talking about. No-one here thinks a genuinely randomly selected individual will likely be gay. The point is that lesser numbers are not an excuse for something to "need" extra explanation. There is no "general sense" to a human. Just the presence of every human as they are. Any human makes sense without resorting to classification of "natural deviation," as there is no a priori standard for what makes one person a human and another not.If you and WoD think that given a random individual, he is more likely to be homosexual than not - then you're just fooling yourselves. The fact that homosexuality is not as frequent as heterosexuality demands an explanation. Why is it that there are fewer homosexuals through history? The explanation available is the evolutionary one, which explains why heterosexuality is the natural tendency of the human being in the most general sense (this does not refer to any particular human being; that's why it is an abstraction), and why homosexuality must necessarily be a natural deviation of the human being in the most general sense. These are evolutionary and undeniable explanations. — Agustino
In which case "deriving" is irrelevant. Ethics doesn't require it. Understanding it doesn't require it, for the moment we pick-up on ethical expression in our intellect, we have it. We have no extra step to take. We just see the good or bad thing as it is. "Deriving" is useless, unnecessary and doing absolutely no work in accounting for ethics.
The problem here is not that we don't need our intellect to pick-up on ethical significance to understand it, but rather "deriving" has no place in this process. When we "reveal" ethical significance, we notice some state is good or bad. There is no "deriving." You are confusing coming to understand the ethical significance of a state, which we can't do without noticing a state of existence, for deriving an "ought" from an "is." — TheWillowOfDarkness
Since no existing human is "abstract" or "general," as there is no a prior standard for what makes an empirical state, such "general sense" abstractions are an incoherent category error. — TheWillowOfDarkness
This is a non-sequitur. The problem only arises because you don't understand what the purpose of abstract and general final causes is - and so you misinterpret it. — Agustino
You are making the mistake of thinking everything about a thing must be related in the intellect. It doesn't. People may know about something and, while they notice what is, not pick-up on the fact it is good or bad. Ethical significance IS a property (an ethical one) expressed by the things itself (it is things which are good or bad)f. Human intellect just doesn't always pick-up on it. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Nope. This is just your unfounded opinion. I suggest you pick up Aristotle's Physics and Metaphysics and start reading them. Perhaps you will realise that you're nowhere near Aristotle's definition nor use with regard to final causes. Therefore what you are talking about is a straw-man.Nope. I know perfectly well what those are: acts of mistaking features expressed by a large group of individuals for the rule that (supposedly) what define a rule which governs the nature of existence. Their "purpose" is to ignore the nature of the world in favour of the comfort of an "origin" rule. It's God/PSR all over again. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Any human makes sense without resorting to classification of "natural deviation," as there is no a priori standard for what makes one person a human and another not. — TheWillowOfDarkness
That claim is uncontroversial by my argument. I concede that adultery ought to be illegal. The question is what legal liability does the website have in facilitating the actions of the users. — Soylent
The liability of encouraging and facilitating access to illegal activity. That in itself is culpable. — Agustino
For consistency, if the harm is to the vows themselves, the openness of the relationship shouldn't have any affect on the harms. — Soylent
If we have a contract together and I break it, without you knowing it, have I harmed you? — Agustino
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.