Presumably not if I don't know about it. Would you say you have harmed me? I wouldn't even know where to begin to quantify a harm that I am unaware of. I don't know what would be the point of a contract you can break without my knowledge. — Soylent

So if we agree that I shall deliver you beef meat, and instead I deliver you horse meat, claiming that it is beef, and you take it, assuming it to be beef, I have done you no harm? If I have done you no harm, how can finding the truth harm you? Finding the truth in and by itself can certainly cause you no harm, can it?

If as a doctor I tell you that I'll give you a general anesthetic, and instead I give you a poison that will not only put you to sleep, but will keep you there permanently, have I not harmed you? Afterall, you'll never know!

So if we agree that I shall deliver you beef meat, and instead I deliver you horse meat, claiming that it is beef, and you take it, assuming it to be beef, I have done you no harm? If I have done you no harm, how can finding the truth harm you? Finding the truth in and by itself can certainly cause you no harm, can it?

If as a doctor I tell you that I'll give you an analgesic, and instead I give you a poison that will not only put you to sleep, but will also kill you, have I not harmed you? Afterall, you'll never know! — Agustino

If you promise me beef meat and deliver horse meat, I have a mechanism to measure the harm if and only if I become aware of the deception (e.g., the harm to my health, financial harm for unfair pricing, etc). If I am never made aware of the deception, by what measure can I possibly say you have harmed me? If I agree to a contract with you I will outline the conditions of the contract to delimit the expectation of fulfillment and I will take care to ensure that those conditions are met so that I am not at risk of being harmed. If you still manage to deceive me and I come away feeling satisfied and unharmed, how can I make a claim to an unspecified harm that I am unaware of?

In the case of the murderous doctor, I'm not a spiritual person so I would say the harm is limited in my person to when I am alive, but my death will harm my friends and family insofar as my friends and family will, hopefully, notice I'm dead even if they don't know the extent that the doctor intended the harm. The breach of the fiduciary responsibility of the doctor can only be measured if and only if information is made known of the murderous intent.

I do see a point emerging here though. Insofar as an action is illegal, the facilitation of the illegal activity and concealment of said activity ought to be illegal (i.e., it's illegal to cover-up a crime).

I do see a point emerging here though. Insofar as an action is illegal, the facilitation of the illegal activity and concealment of said activity ought to be illegal (i.e., it's illegal to cover-up a crime). — Soylent

Indeed.

I'll weigh in on this: it's wrong to lie, but we shouldn't outlaw lying.

The government need not intervene every time you are wronged. — Hanover

The government ought to intervene when the government is wronged. If adultery can be broadly construed as a wrong committed against the values of the government, then the government has an interest to protect those values as far as it is reasonable to do so (people might object that adultery is not reasonable to outlaw because the cost to enforce such a law would be onerous). At least though, if the adultery law fails at the enforcement portion and not in relation to the jurisprudence claim, the facilitation claim might be upheld nonetheless and the enforcement of that law may not be onerous.

Ethical significance is not seen with one's eyes. It's a feature of an object which is understood. It's not understood in the act of looking at an object. Like many other instance of logical significance, like any part of an objects identity, it is a question of understanding some meaning of the object.

Also, I might add. Any human makes sense. But ALL humans don't, without this explanation. A fallacy of composition WoD, which assumes that if any individual human makes sense, nothing else is missing. Maybe "all humans" have properties which individual humans don't, just like how every single grain of sand is hard, while a pile of sand is soft. How much more embarassing do you want this to get? — Agustino

Incoherent. All humans are individuals. If all humans had a quality it would, by definition, by present on all individuals.

The softness of a pile of sand isn't a property of any individual grain. You are making a category error. It's a property expressed in the particular instance where there are many grains together. By definition the property of softness is one of a group of sand. It is not found in any individual member in the pile. The opposite of what you (that some individual humans have the property of "natural deviation" and others do not) are arguing.

This is PSR are all over again, Agustino. You look at the state of the world, the existence of non gay people and gay people, and take away the conclusion these things and their casual relationship are not enough. You want a "why" that sits above humans themselves. Like the proponent of PSR and/or God, you demanding there must be a "why" to how the world is itself, as if it it wasn't enough to make sense on its own.

Aristotle's Finial Cause is, amongst other things, this error. It is a notion of telos, that there is some force directing each the existence of state to a purpose, a "why" that the world supposedly needs to make sense.

Ethical significance is not seen with one's eyes. It's a feature of an object which is understood. It's not understood in the act of looking at an object. Like many other instance of logical significance, like any part of an objects identity, it is a question of understanding some meaning of the object. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Good. Thus it requires the processing of an understanding.

Incoherent. All humans are individuals. If all humans had a quality it would, by definition, by present on all individuals. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Just like all sand grains are hard, but certainly all sand grains are also soft.

The softness of a pile of sand isn't a property of any individual grain. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes. Neither is a natural tendency a property of any individual human being :)

It's a property expressed in the particular instance where there are many grains together. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Exactly! A natural tendency is a property that is expressed in the particular instance where there are many human beings together! Finally you're seeing some light! How refreshing WoD :)

It is a notion of telos, that there is some force directing each the existence of state to a purpose, a "why" that the world supposedly needs to make sense. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But there is such a why. If you do not see it, you do not see it. Maybe some of us do see it; you shouldn't take the limits of your vision as the limits of the world :)

Good. Thus it requires the processing of an understanding. — Agustino

That's exactly what we never have. Each meaning of an thing (including "relations" to other objects- e.g. the computer screen is 50 is cm away form my eyes) is its own discrete instance, which we have no access to prior to the presence of our understanding. No process of understanding occurs. If we learn the ethical significance of something, we do it not through "deriving" (i.e. now I understand this state and by seeing it I know it's bad), but through the brute appearance that something is (im)moral in our experience. There are no "steps." We either know about meaning, in which case we understand it, or we do not.

Just like all sand grains are hard, but certainly all sand grains are also soft. — Agustino

Absolutely not. Only plies of sand are soft. It is an expression only given when there are man sand grain together. A similar meaning expression in humans, for example, would be the decision of a group. When there is a decision made by a group, there is something present which is not found in any instance of an individual human.

All (indvidual) grains are not certainly soft. Just the opposite in fact. Each one is still hard. It just so happens that a collection of them is soft.

Yes. Neither is a natural tendency a property of any individual human being — Agustino

A contradiction. That which is only a property of a group cannot be the property of an individual.

Exactly! A natural tendency is a property that is expressed in the particular instance where there are many human beings together! Finally you're seeing some light! How refreshing WoD — Agustino

Yeah... that's what you think, but is an error. Any group property is expressed in particular instance when there are many humans together.

No doubt "natural" and "natural deviation ( "unnatural" )" are thought to be group properties. That's there entire point: all non-gay people (a group), supposedly, make sense with respect to the telos of humans, while all gay people (another group) do not. But this is both a normative claim, whether or not individual humans meet human telos, and an incoherence, as you can't talk about the significance of human individuals in terms of what is the only the group.

But there is such a why. If you do not see it, you do not see it. Maybe some of us do see it; you shouldn't take the limits of your vision as the limits of the world — Agustino

So said the believer of every falsehood ever, Agustino. The limits of my vision here are logical coherence. To admit you "vision" is to commit a logical error. I'm not letting you get away with peddling logically incoherent arguments just because you happen to like the idea of telos.

You are making the "But I believe it so it must be true" argument here, Agustino.

But there is such a why. If you do not see it, you do not see it. Maybe some of us do see it; you shouldn't take the limits of your vision as the limits of the world — Agustino

The claim of special knowledge unavailable to others, and a knowledge that privileges the knower in a self-serving way. A classic rightwing meme

That's exactly what we never have. Each meaning of an thing (including "relations" to other objects- e.g. the computer screen is 50 is cm away form my eyes) is its own discrete instance, which we have no access to prior to the presence of our understanding. No process of understanding occurs. If we learn the ethical significance of something, we do it not through "deriving" (i.e. now I understand this state and by seeing it I know it's bad), but through the brute appearance that something is (im)moral in our experience. There are no "steps." We either know about meaning, in which case we understand it, or we do not. — TheWillowOfDarkness

False. Deriving requires access to say two objects, and involves extracting an understanding from the two of them of their relation, which is a process of the understanding. Whether it has steps or not is a different question all together.

Absolutely not. Only plies of sand are soft. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Indeed, piles of sand are all sand grains. I used all sand grains with two different meanings, I think you failed to catch it.

Only plies of sand are soft. It is an expression only given when there are man sand grain together. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, grains of sand are hard is also an expression only given when there are man and sand grain together :)

A contradiction. That which is only a property of a group cannot be the property of an individual. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, I haven't argued that a natural tendency is a property of the individual mate. Quite the opposite if you read what I wrote properly.

No doubt "natural" and "natural deviation ( "unnatural" )" are thought to be group properties. That's there entire point: all non-gay people (a group), supposedly, make sense with respect to the telos of humans, while all gay people (another group) do not. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nope, human beings, both gay and non-gay form the same group. Just like white swans and black swans form the same group, even though we can say the natural tendency for swans is to be white.

So said the believer of every falsehood ever, Agustino. The limits of my vision here are logical coherence. To admit you "vision" is to commit a logical error. I'm not letting you get away with peddling logically incoherent arguments just because you happen to like the idea of telos. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, you have failed to illustrate any logical coherence even of your own position. Time and time again I have proved you wrong, and you have just moved the goal-posts behind. First, you argued it is a naturalistic fallacy. I have shown how according to the definitions historically used, it cannot be a naturalistic fallacy, and instead you are committing one. Then you have argued that what explains homosexuality are genes, and I agreed, and I told you that this is not a problem cause then my argument shifts to saying that non-gay genes are a natural tendency of human beings. Now you are arguing that something isn't a process of the understanding merely because one doesn't consciously go through a list of steps. You're also trying to argue something you don't even begin to understand regarding group and individual properties and are continuously mistaking what they entail - you don't even read what I wrote correctly. You fail to see two different meanings of all grains in use. And so on...

You are making the "But I believe it so it must be true" argument here, Agustino. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, you are the one who has no argument, but insist you are right. What can I do? You insist you are right, so I tell you: perhaps, just like some people are myopic and cannot see at distance, so too you cannot understand these matters. That too is a fact, and it doesn't mean that they don't exist.

The claim of special knowledge unavailable to others, and a knowledge that privileges the knower in a self-serving way. A classic rightwing meme — Landru Guide Us

It is available to many others, both past and present. If you read Aristotle (ancient source), and Macintyre (modern) you will see it :)

Yes, grains of sand are hard is also an expression only given when there are man and sand grain together — Agustino

A rather unfortunate place for me to miss I had missed a "y." I was saying "many sand grains together. Piles of sand are only soft when there are many sand grounds are present in a particular configuration. All sand grains DO NOT have (the) two different meanings. The ones not in a pile are not soft.

I haven't argued that a natural tendency is a property of the individual mate. Quite the opposite if you read what I wrote properly. — Agustino

That's exactly what you are arguing. What you are doing is specifying a universal meanings (e.g. hard and soft with sand, natural and unnatural with humans, etc.,etc.) and arguing it gives insight into the nature of individuals,that it describes what they are what they are meant to be telos). Given individuals, you are, of this universal meaning, which can be used to understand the significance and reaction of any individual in the given category. You argument is making the universal the property of the individual, such that talking about a universal (supposedly) gives the nature of an individual.

Just like white swans and black swans form the same group, even though we can say the natural tendency for swans is to be white. — Agustino

This is the "naturalistic fallacy" I was talking about. Not your imagined version you are strawmanning, but the one I've been arguing from the start. I've never withdraw the claim you are making this naturalistic fallacy and my point about the failure of the distinction "natural tendency" and "unnatural tendency" is a continuation of this point.

The mistake you've been making from the start is to consider that some in the group are something more than themselves (i.e. "a natural tendency" rather than just themselves).

No, you are the one who has no argument, but insist you are right. What can I do? You insist you are right, so I tell you: perhaps, just like some people are myopic and cannot see at distance, so too you cannot understand these matters. That too is a fact, and it doesn't mean that they don't exist. — Agustino

My point was that you were not making arguments on the ground your argument is true. You were side-tracked into making a plea about just how important the belief was to you, that it is what you felt and what you saw, and so it simply much be true an accurate. Here my problem was neither that you feel different or understand something I don't (which you, in an important sense very much do; I'll cover that in taking on Landru's assertion this is merely a meme. There is something wider and more significant going on, no matter how flawed the understanding might be), but the way you are arguing about it makes a mockery of logic.

,that it describes what they are what they are meant to be telos) — TheWillowOfDarkness

No. There is no reference to what they are meant to be. You introduce a lot of asinine concepts that I do not agree with and that do not form any part of my worldview. You're persistently arguing with a strawman that only you see.

The ones not in a pile are not soft. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Ever touched the sand on a beach?

Given individuals, you are, of this universal meaning, which can be used to understand the significance and reaction of any individual in the given category — TheWillowOfDarkness

No a natural tendency cannot be used to understand the significance and reaction of an individual. Not at all. Again - a strawman.

You argument is making the universal the property of the individual, such that talking about a universal (supposedly) gives the nature of an individual. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nope, another strawman. I never claimed the natural tendency belongs to the individual, but rather to man in general.

This is the "naturalistic fallacy" I was talking about. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Justify how that is a naturalistic fallacy according to the definitions I have provided before. And no, please don't tell me that a natural tendency tells us about how some individual ought to be, because it doesn't - it only does that in your mind.

Ever touched the sand on a beach? — Agustino

That's... in a pile, Agustino.

Nope, another strawman. I never claimed the natural tendency belongs to the individual, but rather to man in general. — Agustino

I know that. The problem is not that you claimed it. It is that you are thinking it. Your position is that you can understand individuals through "man in general" (i.e. property of "man in general" is of individuals, such that universal of the "man in general" describe something about the individual).

The problem is sort of the reverse you suggest: you claim individuals belong to the universal, that individuals are of "man in general," when that is what individuals never are (as the are specific states).

And no, please don't tell me that a natural tendency tells us about how some individual ought to be, because it doesn't - it only does that in your mind. — Agustino

It runs deeper than that. What it suggests is that individuals only make sense if the are a certain way (of the "natural tendency" ). It is not a question of thinking what someone ought to be, but rather what it make sense for them to be.

What you are concern about is having an understanding of the world which hold that humans, necessarily MUST be and ARE, something in particular. What you hate about modern philosophy and culture is it holds there is no universal, there is no "general" which gives the individual.

In its shallow form, this modern philosophy gives the position that we and are world are nothing, that all existence is a blank slate, never with direction, always present with "freedom" and without any other sort of meaning which actually makes our lives enjoyable or worthwhile (e.g. need to work, the happiness of doing, the understanding was are something and that, as as state of existence, there is something we do). Supposedly, there is no idea (universal, general) which can say what existence is.

The "natural tendency" which you are so enamoured with is an attempt to get beyond this unsatisfying state of "freedom." It is to say: "Well, this is natural/unnatural, so it matters." The universal,"man in general," is used to fill the perceived meaningless of the individual. Supposedly, we finally have a world that matters, a world which one must (not ought, but MUST-i.e. it is a question of the meaning of existence, rather than just whether or not we ought to do something) respond to and be within.

But the problem is you've made exactly the error you are trying to avoid. The "universal" only needs to come along to say how existence matters because you've believed the shallow argument in the first instance. In the face of "freedom," you've accepted that it tells the truth about the individual. You've failed to grasp how it is a junk argument.

Instead pointing out that, contrary to what the "freedom" argument claims, individuals are always have some particular meaning, you've accepted the shallow modern argument gets us right, such that we need some extra "universal" to define how ourselves and world matters.

We don't. The world matters in various ways itself. How each state matters is an expression of that state itself. The world is never stuck in "freedom." No "universal" is required to rescue how the world matters. When we begin with the crazy idea that, you know, things matter in some way, we don't need any way to "make" them matter.

It is available to many others, both past and present. If you read Aristotle (ancient source), and Macintyre (modern) you will see i — Agustino

You mean you've read Aristotle! That is such a rare scholarly achievement. I'll have to look up this Aristotle fellow.

That's... in a pile, Agustino. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I didn't know a beach is a pile. It's sand grains together. So the property of a single sand grain is hardness. The property of a group of sand grains is softness. Natural tendency is a property of the group of human beings, not of any individual human being.

Your position is that you can understand individuals through "man in general" (i.e. property of "man in general" is of individuals, such that universal of the "man in general" describe something about the individual). — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, this simply isn't my position. More straw-manning.

The problem is sort of the reverse you suggest: you claim individuals belong to the universal, that individuals are of "man in general," when that is what individuals never are (as the are specific states). — TheWillowOfDarkness

Lol - no I don't. If you're under that impression, let me clarify the 100th time that I don't claim that.

It runs deeper than that. What it suggests is that individuals only make sense if the are a certain way (of the "natural tendency" ). It is not a question of thinking what someone ought to be, but rather what it make sense for them to be. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nope - it's not this either. But had it been this, it would still not be a naturalistic fallacy.

What you are concern about is having an understanding of the world which hold that humans, necessarily MUST be and ARE, something in particular. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No not at all. Natural tendency of humans in general doesn't mean that an individual human must be anything in particular...

What you hate about modern philosophy and culture is it holds there is no universal, there is no "general" which gives the individual. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is a separate question. What I dislike about it is the fact that it attempts to universalise that there is no universal... a most radical self-contradiction, if there ever was one. Also what I dislike about it is that it fails to see that there are generalities and universals with regard to many things.

The "natural tendency" which you are so enamoured with is an attempt to get beyond this unsatisfying state of "freedom." — TheWillowOfDarkness

That's not a state of freedom, it's a state of radical incoherency and self-contradiction. Also your statements about some "unsatisfying freedom" are the most crass delusion I've read in awhile.

It is to say: "Well, this is natural/unnatural, so it matters." — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nope. Just because something is natural does not mean it matters more or less than something unnatural. You're again imagining things.

The universal,"man in general," is used to fill the perceived meaningless of the individual. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Absolutely no relation between this "meaninglessness of the individual" and the universal "man in general". Meaning is always context specific, so a universal (ie, a context-less statement) cannot provide meaning. Furthermore, a natural tendency is a universal, but it is situated in the context of that which gives rise to it: evolution and the biological constraints placed on man and woman - thus it isn't a pure universal - it does have some context. If evolution were different, or the biological constraints placed on reproduction were different, the natural tendency would be different, but it would still be just as universal in terms of its applicability to humanity.

But the problem is you've made exactly the error you are trying to avoid. The "universal" only needs to come along to say how existence matters because you've believed the shallow argument in the first instance. In the face of "freedom," you've accepted that it tells the truth about the individual. You've failed to grasp how it is a junk argument. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No - again, another one of your imaginations - the universal comes because it is rationally needed. Such explanations exist, and they do account for what happens in the world, just like gas laws account for the random distribution of gas molecules in a closed container.

Instead pointing out that, contrary to what the "freedom" argument claims, individuals are always have some particular meaning, you've accepted the shallow modern argument gets us right, such that we need some extra "universal" to define how ourselves and world matters. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, contrary to your nonsensical hypothesis, I actually do accept that individuals always have particular meanings (meaning is context-mediated). You fail to understand the purpose of the natural tendency, which is purely explanatory, and does not exist to create meaning.

No "universal" is required to rescue how the world matters. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes - universals however have nothing to do with the world mattering. Aristotle and Plato didn't sit in their chairs one day being like "Oh this meaningless world... man must somehow be rescued from this terrible freedom, therefore we have to invent this concept of "universal" to give meaning to an otherwise meaningless world". No, that's not how it happened at all. I really do suggest you read the Physics and Metaphysics at least...

You mean you've read Aristotle! That is such a rare scholarly achievement. I'll have to look up this Aristotle fellow. — Landru Guide Us

Unfortunately, to my shame, I've only read a little of Aristotle and quite a bit about him. One of the few great philosophers who still has quite a few works I haven't read and whose insights I've started to appreciate lately, even though I didn't like him much at first :)

Sin, what is sin if not a cultural thing? If one deviates from the cultural norms, then one is referred to as a sinner by the majority.
If sin is connected to various sexual acts and behavior by the dominant culture, then there will always be those that deviate from the norm.
Nature made all animals (humans included) interested in sex and therefore procreation.
How is this activity sinful when it is perfectly normal and natural?

What do you think - should organisations promoting deceitfulness (think for example Ashley Madison which aims to be a dating website for people already in commited relationships, guaranteeing to keep the identity of their members secret) be outlawed, and people engaged in such activities punished by law? — Agustino

No, certainly not, as I'm from a modern, secular, liberal nation, not a draconian, religious, authoritarian nation, and that's exactly how it should be, and how it should remain. The state has no business forcing it's way into such private matters, based no doubt on your twisted Christian beliefs about fidelity, punishment, and the like. The further away people like you are from the legislature, or any influential role in parliament, the better!

I am not surprised to see another characteristically appalling suggestion from Agustino, even though he posts nothing like the rate at which he used to.

(Turns out this discussion is 4 years old, excepting my comment here and the one above it).

I argue the same is the case for websites like Ashley Madison. They too cause conflicts in society, broken families, which lead to long term poverty, problems with children and so on. Furthermore, they also encourage and applaud deceiving "Life is short. Have an affair". They make a virtue out of the social sin of oppressing and deceiving others. Thus such an organisation deserves not only to be outlawed - but treated exactly like ISIS - with all their associates and members tracked down and brought in front of the law to be judged for promoting and engaging in illegal activity (in this case, the illegal activity would be anti-social behaviour and fraud). But to allow them to continue to function - and not only this - but to make money out of such an activity - that is the most monstrous absurdity. — Agustino

Your ISIS analogy fails because it facilitates crimes, whereas affairs are not crimes. Do you have any data support your claim that clandestine affairs cause more broken homes? It's conceivable that the homes get broken by the discovery of the affair, which would imply these sites are doing a service by making it easier to do them secretly.

About 10 years ago, a married aquaintence of mine had an affair through Ashley Madison (or something similar). He resorted to this because his 20 year marriage was celibate. He was devoted to his wife, so he didn't want to divorce her or hurt her - but he really didn't want to live without sex for the rest of his life. His affair was short-lived, and I'm pretty sure his wife never found out about it. I lost touch, but based on his facebook status - he still seems to be married to her. In a sense, Ashley-Madison saved his marriage.