For the life of mine... I cannot understand you!

[Areopagite]

Your ongoing ambiguity is how you relate the concept of what a person wants to what is actually good for a person. Sometimes, you seem to say they are different, and sometimes you seem to say they always go together. Or something.

Sometimes, you seem to say that what is good for a person is based on what he wants, other times you say that a person can want what is not good for him, and then sometimes you say that the idea of “what is good for a person” is meaningless, because you seem to deny the idea of ontological goodness. You do distinguish harm from “going against consent,” but I am still unclear what you mean by harm if you deny ontological goodness. What is harm? I guess I now need a clear definition to understand what you are saying (b/c technically you never gave one … just examples). Once again, I think harm is linked to the concept of privation, and denying that … I cannot see how “harm” could possibly be defined.

If he did not give his consent, then the kids used force to make the old man to do something that he did not want. Whether we call that “evil”, or “misguided helpfulness”, is just a minor point. I would not call it downright “evil”, of course. It does not merit such a strong condemnation. But it is something that the kids should not have done.

Now, what makes you call this “misguided helpfulness” rather than “evil” … what is the criteria with which you label this act in this way? You have not explicated this. You said that evil is causing harm to another against that person’s consent. If the old man was uncomfortable (which you said is a kind of harm) during this venture, then technically it is evil, right (going by your definition)? This is a very important point. Is the act’s wrongness reduced because it causes very little harm? If so, I will ask you, again, what is the definition of harm? Much of your arguments hinge on this.

The adults (hopefully) possess more knowledge, more wisdom, and can see the benefit on the child’s behalf, which the child does not see. We must presume that the parents have more understanding, and if the child would be in the position to make a valid assessment of the facts, he would agree.

Okay, here you talk about “benefit” which I assume is equivalent to “what is good for the child” … in other words, I would say, ontological goodness. Right?

But really, according to your thinking, understanding what is good for a person really doesn’t matter. It’s really all about consent, right? Why should consent only be important for people who have understanding? Consent is consent. It is the determining factor of morality, you have said. Why are the rules modified with people who aren’t perfectly informed? Thus, your ongoing statement of: evil is harm done to another without the person’s consent, suffers from grave exceptions. Can you modify the definition a bit to make it more airtight? It just doesn’t seem to apply in many cases.

Your idea of retroactive consent is … well, quite silly. I mean, conceivably I could do all sorts of really horrible stuff to people if later I somehow manage to convince them that it was okay. Someone could really physically abuse and rape people without their consent, but if the people later on say that it’s okay … then … it’s okay. Those rapes were never bad to begin with, according to the doctrine of retroactive consent (which undoes initial dissent apparently). Really, all kinds of evils could potentially evolve into never having been evils at all if the victims just change their minds about it down the road.

What if a kid never retroactively consents to having been forced to go to school? By your definition, those parents did wrong. What if the kid dies before he gives consent? The parents would still be wrongdoers since the future consent never came. Does this make any sense?

I was not talking about the “glass” itself, I was talking about the “glass of water”, which may only be 90% full. Is there a privation there?

Well, I profusely apologize, but this is getting very philosophical and thus I must stoop down to very philosophical concepts. I would say, as Aristotle would, that the glass and the water are separate substances. “A glass of water” is not a single substance, but two with a relation to each other. Thus, I believe, you can’t talk about “a glass of water” as having a privation but you can talk of privations in the glass and in the water. I may be wrong, but I’m fairly certain. If I’m wrong, there’s this question to ask: “What is a glass of water for?” Look at the purposes of things to determine whether or not it is achieving ontological perfection. Indeed, what is a glass of water for? If it’s slightly empty, does it start to perform it’s function badly? Well, as Aristotle would say, artificial objects get their purposes from their designers. Thus, I ask, why was this particular glass made? What was its purpose intended to be? If it’s job was intended to “hold any amount of water” then you could say it would fulfill its job no matter how much water it had. If you are employing it to be a full glass of water, then you could say it’s not up to snuff, because it’s only 90% full. Human-made things vary in goodness depending on what they are used for by humans.

Goodness and fulfillment is a relative term - pertaining to something. Someone might be severly handicapped, but can function perfectly well in a virtual environment, like this discussion board.

I don’t see what point you’re making here. By saying that goodness is relative … are you in effect saying it’s meaningless? What exactly are you saying?

One brief mention though: artificial things gain their meaning and defining purposes from their human designers. Natural things, do not. Plants, animals, and even humans cannot be redefined by humans. We are able to define the meaning of artificial things only.

Thus, I would say that the objective standard of humans, since they are not artificial, do not have wavering standards of being. We are able to say what is good for a human and what is bad for a human, because human nature is not changeable. Anyway, I talk more on this if necessary …

No, I don’t disagree. It is absolutely acceptable to try to help, where you perceive that the person is in dire need of help. What is not acceptable is to attempt to help, and when the person tells you that your help is unwelcome, then turn around and do it anyway.

Here again, some of your words seem to be at odds with others. ** What do you mean by “dire need of help” … help with what? Help with making him do what he wants or help with getting him to be a better person?
**

 

[Prodigal_Son]

In a certain way, the conflict in this thread is a conflict between liberalism and paternalism. Liberalism, as expressed by J.S. Mill, is the freedom to make an experiment of happiness with your life – to try out anything that doesn’t harm others, and see if it makes you happy. Paternalism is the belief that certain people have privileged access to the knowledge that leads to happiness – or, at least, virtue (which according to many moral philosophies is the objective nature of happiness) – and that these privileged people are entitled to enforce their views on others.

But Areopagite, myself, and others are not claiming paternalism, precisely; we are saying that certain people know better, and are entitled to make known their *opinions *to others. Declaring something a sin is a far cry from making something illegal. And don’t go on about how we are sending people to hell. *You *don’t believe that we are condemning people to hell, and *we *don’t believe that we are condemning people to hell, so who exactly believes it? This is the paradox of people who expect tolerance: they will not countenance that others are not as tolerant as they.

I don’t think that last sentence applies to you, Spock, because you’re trying to reconcile two judgments Catholics make. But I would point out that the moral judgment does not proceed from distinctively Catholic moral philosophy. It can be defended using multiple ethical standards: natural law theory, Kantianism, even perhaps utilitarianism. As such, I think your complaint is something like this:

1. X believes Proposition A, and Proposition A is outrageous.
2. X believes Proposition B, and I disagree with Proposition B.
3. Therefore, X’s beliefs are outrageous.

Step #2 is purely unnecessary, although it certainly sets off some fireworks. Your real problem here is with the problem of evil. Not so?

 

[survive]

Declaring something a sin is a far cry from making something illegal. And don’t go on about how we are sending people to hell. *You *don’t believe that we are condemning people to hell, and *we *don’t believe that we are condemning people to hell, so who exactly believes it?

:tiphat:Well put.

 

[Spock]

Please forgive me for being late in responding. I am quite busy now, but I will return when time permits.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Please forgive me for being late in responding. I am quite busy now, but I will return when time permits.

Spock…for the life of me… I cannot understand you!

 

[Spock]

Your ongoing ambiguity is how you relate the concept of what a person wants to what is actually good for a person. Sometimes, you seem to say they are different, and sometimes you seem to say they always go together. Or something.

Ok, let’s get down to the details.

First: beneficial and harmful, which are each other’s opposites. Their synonyms are good and bad. These categories cannot be defined for inanimate objects. For a piece of marble it is not “benefical” or “good” to be sculpted into a piece of art, and it is not “harmful” or “bad” for it to be broken up into small pieces.

These categories can only be defined for living organisms, which try to maintain their homeostasis. For living creatures it is “good” or “beneficial” to maintain their continued existence, and it is “bad” or “harmful” to lose their continued existence. None of these catigories carry any overtones. They are simply biological categories.

Now, to talk about “living organisms” in general is too crude for subtle distinction making. The living organisms differ in their complexity. The organisms without a nervous system (vegetation and bacteria) are very different from the members of the animal kingdom. For a tree it is “bad” to lose a branch, but the loss is “unknown” for the tree - it does not “care”. It does not feel pain. Lacking a nervous system there is no pain, no sense of “well being”, there is no fear.

For an animals the situation is more complicated, and it also depends on their advancement. To tear out the wings of fly is definitely “harmful” to its continued existence. We don’t really know what kind signals does the fly get (thorough its primitive nervous system). It may or may not feel what we consider “pain”. But then insects do not have a central nervous system.

The higher animals (with a central nervous system) are much closer to us. Based upon observations we can conclude that they feel pain, experience pleasure, feel danger and contentment.

All this is biology. Sorry to go to such lengths, but you wanted the definition of “harmful”. Whatever advances the animals’ life and maintains its well-being is “good” for them, and the opposite is “bad” for them. But they are aware only of their own pain, and maybe - to a small extent - the pain of their kin. It has been obeserved that group animals try to help each other. (I am not aware of such behavior for predators). So there is a limited sense of “others”. But the term “evil” (finally we get to this term, too) is not applicable for them. When a cat “plays” witha mouse, it causes pain, it causes anguish, but the cat does not know that.

Humans form a new category. We can understand that a biologically beneficial action (for us) can be detrimental to the other party. Therefore we introduced the term “moral” and “immoral”, “morally good” and “evil”. Unlike the biological “good” and “bad” these new terms can be ambiguous. What one person considers “morally good”, can be viewed as “evil” by someone else. There is simply no concensus on the matter. (Example: a suicide bomber is viewed as a hero and a martyr by his brethren, while others consider him a despicable terrorist).

Generally speaking a “moral behavior” is defined as being in harmony with some “rule set” - adhering to some “expected behavior”. Where this rule set comes from is the source of contention between theists and atheists. Also we have to be aware that there are many rule sets. We all belong to many “groups” and the expected behavior may be in contradiction with other, applicable rule sets. To make the matter even more complicated, the rule sets change as time goes on. Whatever was considered “moral” yesterday, may be considered immoral today. (Example could be casual drug usage in the US. It used to be perfectly acceptable and legal about a 100 years ago.)

Is this what you wanted to hear? Of course this is just a crude introduction.

 

[Spock]

In a certain way, the conflict in this thread is a conflict between liberalism and paternalism. Liberalism, as expressed by J.S. Mill, is the freedom to make an experiment of happiness with your life – to try out anything that doesn’t harm others, and see if it makes you happy. Paternalism is the belief that certain people have privileged access to the knowledge that leads to happiness – or, at least, virtue (which according to many moral philosophies is the objective nature of happiness) – and that these privileged people are entitled to enforce their views on others.

But Areopagite, myself, and others are not claiming paternalism, precisely; we are saying that certain people know better, and are entitled to make known their *opinions *to others.

Up until this point you have my total agreement.

Declaring something a sin is a far cry from making something illegal.

I can bring up examples where this is precisely the intent of many (maybe not all) Christians. But I am not sure how is this applicable to the current discussion.

1. X believes Proposition A, and Proposition A is outrageous.
2. X believes Proposition B, and I disagree with Proposition B.
3. Therefore, X’s beliefs are outrageous.

Step #2 is purely unnecessary, although it certainly sets off some fireworks. Your real problem here is with the problem of evil. Not so?

Not really. It is the **reaction **to this question which I am investigating in this thread. And I find the reaction inconsistent.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Look at yourself from the outside. First, you assert - unanimously - that the highest value for God is love. You also say (and I agree) that love must be manifested in actions, a “proclaimed” love without actions is useless. Then, also unanimously you condemn the sexual expression of love between two consenting adults as evil and sinful, if those two people happen to belong to the same gender. Even if they are legitimally married heterosexuals, but their act is not aimed at procreation (rather simple pleasure seeking) you say that their act of love is evil. Next, you try to find “excuses” for the acts of supreme “non-love”, for example rape, torture, murder - by saying that we “cannot know” if these acts are truly evil. There is no hesitation in the condemnation of homosexual love, there is no “maybe it is OK, we just don’t know”. But there are all sorts of excuses in regard of really evil acts. And you assert that God thinks like you…

Don’t you realize how strange you are from the outside? How utterly incomprehensible?

You seem to consider sex and love as being the same. That is a falicy if that is what you believe. Love is something that men have for men and women. I love my son and my father. That does not mean I have sex with them. Sex is something that is about creation. When a married couple have sex they are participating in the creation of life and it is a good thing.

When people of the same gender have ‘sex’ they are not participating in creation and are doing something that God never intended. If you have problems with believeing in God then it is also easily understood that males were never intended to have sex with other males as females were never intended to have sex with other females. It is natural for a man and woman to have sex for it leads to procreation and that is what the male and female organs are designed for. Marriage is the union of male and female who are open to procreation and will stay united for all time and raise their children to be children of God.

There is no logical argument for homosexuality. None. God or nature never intended homosexuality, it is a disorder.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I can bring up examples where this is precisely the intent of many (maybe not all) Christians. But I am not sure how is this applicable to the current discussion.

I’m exploring the nature of paternalism. To be clear, it is only the paternalism that enforces its view (legally) on other people that you object to, or do you object to a religion having an unenforced view that you disagree with?

At one point, the decision among Christians was a decision between tolerance of premarital sexuality or illegalization of premarital sexual activity. When the culture shifted, it became a decision between tolerance or illegalization of homosexual activity (which, to me, is essentially indistinguishable to all extramarital sexual behavior, but people have their biases). But now the culture has further shifted, and the debate among Christians is between tolerance or full acceptance of homosexual behavior. Those who wish to enforce sodomy laws, at this point, are locking the stables while the horses are halfway across the country.

At any rate, there is indeed an argument to be made against liberalism, and that argument does not commit you to tyranny or injustice.

Not really. It is the **reaction **to this question which I am investigating in this thread. And I find the reaction inconsistent.

The reaction to what question? What about it is inconsistent?

 

[Spock]

You seem to consider sex and love as being the same. That is a falicy if that is what you believe. Love is something that men have for men and women. I love my son and my father. That does not mean I have sex with them.

Yes, so far you are correct. But I never said that sex and love are the same. Sex is an expression of love between some people - and as such it cannot be “evil” - even if it cannot lead to procreation. Which you will confirm as soon as I speak about sex between infertile (but legally married) persons. And then you will make a turnabout if I speak about an unmarried couple, where the partners want to procreate…

Sex is something that is about creation. When a married couple have sex they are participating in the creation of life and it is a good thing.

When people of the same gender have ‘sex’ they are not participating in creation and are doing something that God never intended. If you have problems with believeing in God then it is also easily understood that males were never intended to have sex with other males as females were never intended to have sex with other females. It is natural for a man and woman to have sex for it leads to procreation and that is what the male and female organs are designed for. Marriage is the union of male and female who are open to procreation and will stay united for all time and raise their children to be children of God.

There is no logical argument for homosexuality. None. God or nature never intended homosexuality, it is a disorder.

This part is just your opinion. However, I am not having problems in believing God, though I do not believe. What I cannot comprehend is the elaborate set of totally irrational excuses which you use as “moral highground” to condemn certain expressions of love.

 

[Spock]

I’m exploring the nature of paternalism. To be clear, it is only the paternalism that enforces its view (legally) on other people that you object to, or do you object to a religion having an unenforced view that you disagree with?

Only the (legally) intrusive kind. I respect your views. If you wish to live by them, you have my full support. I also welcome the expression of those views, and accept them as well-intentioned advices. Whether I will follow them or not, is a totally different matter. Also, as soon as the “thank you, but no, thank you” is emitted, even that friendly advise-giving should stop.

At one point, the decision among Christians was a decision between tolerance of premarital sexuality or illegalization of premarital sexual activity. When the culture shifted, it became a decision between tolerance or illegalization of homosexual activity (which, to me, is essentially indistinguishable to all extramarital sexual behavior, but people have their biases). But now the culture has further shifted, and the debate among Christians is between tolerance or full acceptance of homosexual behavior. Those who wish to enforce sodomy laws, at this point, are locking the stables while the horses are halfway across the country.

Well said.

And I have to add: to my best knowledge that are devout Catholics who happen to be homosexuals and they feel excluded from the very community which they would love to be part of. They suffer because of the exclusion. This is especially true of teenagers, and quite a few committed suicide in despair. And that is the result of the unbending nature of the RCC.

At any rate, there is indeed an argument to be made against liberalism, and that argument does not commit you to tyranny or injustice.

You made me curious.

The reaction to what question? What about it is inconsistent?

Read the previous exchange between JacktheCatholic and myself.

 

[MindOverMatter]

And I have to add: to my best knowledge that are devout Catholics who happen to be homosexuals and they feel excluded from the very community which they would love to be part of. They suffer because of the exclusion. This is especially true of teenagers, and quite a few committed suicide in despair. And that is the result of the unbending nature of the RCC.

There is a difference between prejudice and saying no to homosexuality

 

[Prodigal_Son]

And I have to add: to my best knowledge that are devout Catholics who happen to be homosexuals and they feel excluded from the very community which they would love to be part of. They suffer because of the exclusion. This is especially true of teenagers, and quite a few committed suicide in despair. And that is the result of the unbending nature of the RCC.

There’s more than one thing going on here. Telling someone that *x *is a sin within the Church, and that one must consider *x *a sin to fully be a part of the Church, is exclusive, but it is necessarily so. The Church similarly excludes thieves, if they do not consider theft a sin. There is no prejudice here, because the justification of the *action *is excluded, but not the action itself (we all are sinners), and definitely not the desire.

There is another kind of unnecessary exclusion, however: when people with same-sex attractions are made to feel inferior or hated because of something they cannot control. This is happening less often now than decades ago, but it still happens. Excluding a person in such a way is sinful and inhuman. But I do not see how the Catholic Church, as such, is responsible for this. Can you show me any Church teachings or documents that contain such an arbitrary condemnation?

Also, by the way, there are a great many Catholics with same-sex attractions (abbreviated SSA) who live chaste lives – perhaps single, perhaps married – and have no problem at all with the teachings of the Church.

You made me curious.

Liberalism assumes that a man is the measure of all things. It assumes that each man is capable of deciding what is best for himself, and ought to have the freedom to do so, so long as he does not hurt anyone else. But many men are clearly not capable of deciding what is best for themselves – consider those who choose to succumb to an addiction, where they could live their lives profitably. Is there not an argument to be made that we ought not jail these people, but we instead ought to limit their choices at the outset, so that they cannot be swallowed up by their own preferences?

Speaking of preferences…

Sex is an expression of love between some people - and as such it cannot be “evil” - even if it cannot lead to procreation.

Hate to bring it up, but this seems to defend sex between adults and children, as well. The standard line is that children are not capable of giving consent, but that line is completely arbitrary. An immature 30-year-old is likewise incapable of giving consent to sexual activity – because the possible negative consequences (which they do not consider) are so very high. In essence, when it comes to pedophilia, the liberal puts on his paternalism hat and draws a line in the sand. But I’m very concerned that the very philosophies that convince liberal thinkers to accept homosexuality today commit them to further “innovations” to sexuality in the future. Defining acceptable relationships in terms of “love” is a slippery slope.

 

[Spock]

There is another kind of unnecessary exclusion, however: when people with same-sex attractions are made to feel inferior or hated because of something they cannot control. This is happening less often now than decades ago, but it still happens. Excluding a person in such a way is sinful and inhuman. But I do not see how the Catholic Church, as such, is responsible for this. Can you show me any Church teachings or documents that contain such an arbitrary condemnation?

Yes. The Church condemns murder - rightfully so - but used to consecrate the weapons of armies, when they were sent to war (and of course it happened on both sides ). Murder is intentionally taking the life of another human, and war is exactly that - on a large scale. This is inconsistency in my eyes, though I suspect that there is some “excuse”. I am not sure about today, but the Church used to support state-sanctioned murder, which was euphemized as “execution”.

Also, by the way, there are a great many Catholics with same-sex attractions (abbreviated SSA) who live chaste lives – perhaps single, perhaps married – and have no problem at all with the teachings of the Church.

Undoubtedly. But there are many who give in to the **natural **desire and feel miserable because of the condemnation.

Liberalism assumes that a man is the measure of all things. It assumes that each man is capable of deciding what is best for himself, and ought to have the freedom to do so, so long as he does not hurt anyone else. But many men are clearly not capable of deciding what is best for themselves – consider those who choose to succumb to an addiction, where they could live their lives profitably. Is there not an argument to be made that we ought not jail these people, but we instead ought to limit their choices at the outset, so that they cannot be swallowed up by their own preferences?

And who is to decide what is the best for these people? These days even casual drug usage is considered “addiction”, and the Big Brother decides what is good for us. The intrusion of the government in such matter is inexcusable. Of course every tyrant claims that they act in our best interest, and we are not qualified to make decisions for ourselves. I maintain that the average human is perfectly capable to make valid decisions for themselves, and the do-gooders simply interfere unnecessarily. Have you heard the nice prayer: “Oh Lord, save me from the people who want to save me from myself!”. That prayer I agree with.

Speaking of preferences…

Hate to bring it up, but this seems to defend sex between adults and children, as well. The standard line is that children are not capable of giving consent, but that line is completely arbitrary.

That is far from arbitrary. Please don’t say that.

An immature 30-year-old is likewise incapable of giving consent to sexual activity – because the possible negative consequences (which they do not consider) are so very high. In essence, when it comes to pedophilia, the liberal puts on his paternalism hat and draws a line in the sand.

A perfectly sane woman may drink too much and may consent to sex while intoxicated. Yet, the partner will be accused of rape, because the adult woman is not in the position to make rational decisions for herself. But these are rare instances, and rationally justified. The blanket paternalism has no rational excuses.

But I’m very concerned that the very philosophies that convince liberal thinkers to accept homosexuality today commit them to further “innovations” to sexuality in the future. Defining acceptable relationships in terms of “love” is a slippery slope.

What do you have in mind? To support the freedom of consenting adults does not lead to pedophilia, and does not lead to beastiality. Children are mostly little “beasts”, who have no rational capacity to make decisiosn for themsleves. Mentally retarded adults belong to the same category.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Undoubtedly. But there are many who give in to the **natural **desire and feel miserable because of the condemnation.

People condemning me does not make me feel miserable unless a) they have power over me, or b) I agree with them. Since the Church does not have power over these people, I can only conclude that – if they are miserable – they feel themselves deserving of condemnation.

And who is to decide what is the best for these people? These days even casual drug usage is considered “addiction”, and the Big Brother decides what is good for us. The intrusion of the government in such matter is inexcusable. Of course every tyrant claims that they act in our best interest, and we are not qualified to make decisions for ourselves. I maintain that the average human is perfectly capable to make valid decisions for themselves, and the do-gooders simply interfere unnecessarily. Have you heard the nice prayer: “Oh Lord, save me from the people who want to save me from myself!”. That prayer I agree with.

I think there is a lot of validity in what you’re saying here, and I am opposed to many “Big Brotherish” actions of the government as well – case in point, when children are taken from their families and placed in foster care for absurd reasons. I am not advocating against liberalism as a useful governmental method; I am only saying that liberalism is not valuable in itself, apart from its results.

If there is an objective nature to happiness, then the freedom to pursue one’s own definition of happiness is not a good. But the freedom to pursue one’s own definition of happiness is *the *liberal value. Thus (given the objectivity of happiness), liberalism does not accord with the nature of a human being, but it may nevertheless be functionally compatible with that nature.

That is far from arbitrary. Please don’t say that.

To clarify my meaning: it is arbitrary that a grown man may - indeed, often is socially encouraged to - have sex with an 18-year-old, but certainly may not have sex with a 17-year-old. It is *not *arbitrary that a grown man may make love to his wife, but not his girlfriend. Since there is no clear demarcation line in the first example, it is a line writ in sand. Since the criteria of the modern mind is that “two consenting adults” may do what they like, it is inevitable that the definition of “consenting” and the definition of “adult” are subject to change. The law is simply a reflection of the customs of society.

What do you have in mind? To support the freedom of consenting adults does not lead to pedophilia, and does not lead to beastiality. Children are mostly little “beasts”, who have no rational capacity to make decisiosn for themsleves.

Is an intelligent fifteen-year-old a little beast? Where do they gain the rational capacity to make decisions for themselves? Again, where are you drawing this line?

Society has accommodated homosexuality because it is normal - that is, because it is the case. But any number of things may be the case, and this does not mean we should accommodate them. I would like to believe that our society can make the moral distinctions necessary to maintain order and decency, but I question whether it can. Marriage plays a central organizing role in Western society – it is by no means peripheral. *But marriage is not based on what people desire. *When we do organize society around what people desire, I’m quite concerned about what will become of us.

 

[JDaniel]

Then you never read those threads which deal with the problem of evil… where the posters say that the “greater good” of free will justifies God’s inaction in preventing these acts… And those where others argue that no matter how horrendous some acts may be, God can turn them around and makes something much better from them - which of course justifies their existence. Of course they do not say outright that rapes are justifyable, they just find feeble excuses why these acts are permitted by God.

Spock:

Can you give a clear definition or, conception, of what you mean by “horrendous (evil) acts”? With, perhaps, an example or two.

jd

 

[Spock]

People condemning me does not make me feel miserable unless a) they have power over me, or b) I agree with them. Since the Church does not have power over these people, I can only conclude that – if they are miserable – they feel themselves deserving of condemnation.

Obviously you are not a teenager, full of hormones and doubts. You are a healthy adult, who can make a good and proper decision, whose “praise” or “condemnation” is worthy of consideration. Good for you! Alas, not everyone is like you. People “value” the opinion of others, even if they should not. Especially teenagers. For them the acceptance of their peers is of the highest importance (they are herd-animals). And your conclusion is way out of whack - sorry, but it is.

I think there is a lot of validity in what you’re saying here, and I am opposed to many “Big Brotherish” actions of the government as well – case in point, when children are taken from their families and placed in foster care for absurd reasons. I am not advocating against liberalism as a useful governmental method; I am only saying that liberalism is not valuable in itself, apart from its results.

Well, let me tell you: **nothing **is valuable in and by itself, except for its results. Value is always determined in some context. A zillion dollars is totally without value on a deserted island.

If there is an objective nature to happiness, then the freedom to pursue one’s own definition of happiness is not a good. But the freedom to pursue one’s own definition of happiness is *the *liberal value. Thus (given the objectivity of happiness), liberalism does not accord with the nature of a human being, but it may nevertheless be functionally compatible with that nature.

The point is that there is no “objective” measurement of happiness. It is a highly subjective feeling. This is the reason that “anything should go” as long as there is no interference with the same endeavors by others. "Live and let live "- is a very wise thought. “The right of my fist ends where your nose begins” - is another.

To clarify my meaning: it is arbitrary that a grown man may - indeed, often is socially encouraged to - have sex with an 18-year-old, but certainly may not have sex with a 17-year-old. It is *not *arbitrary that a grown man may make love to his wife, but not his girlfriend. Since there is no clear demarcation line in the first example, it is a line writ in sand. Since the criteria of the modern mind is that “two consenting adults” may do what they like, it is inevitable that the definition of “consenting” and the definition of “adult” are subject to change. The law is simply a reflection of the customs of society.

Thank you. I understand now what you mean. There is a variable line when a child will reach a level in maturity, and from that line onwards we can and should entrust that child with making a decision about his own life. To tie it to a certain biological age is very imprecise and also arbitrary. Yes. But what can we do? The laws are always somewhat arbitrary and many times totally nonsensical. Where is the rationale with allowing an 18 years old “kid” to fly several million dollars’ worth of fighter plane, giving him control over lethal weapons, entrusting him to engage in lethal combat, and yet prohibit him from drinking a glass of beer?

Is an intelligent fifteen-year-old a little beast? Where do they gain the rational capacity to make decisions for themselves? Again, where are you drawing this line?

Impossible to tell in general. It varies from person to person. There are very mature children and very childish adults. But this is not the question we are pondering, is it? We are talking about sensible adults, who are entrusted to make decisions for themselves. It is their prerogative to make decisions, and to carry the consequences.

Society has accommodated homosexuality because it is normal - that is, because it is the case.

It very much depends on the society. In ancient Greece, the acts of homosexual behavior was considered the highest form of friendship especially among the comrades in arms.

But any number of things may be the case, and this does not mean we should accommodate them. I would like to believe that our society can make the moral distinctions necessary to maintain order and decency, but I question whether it can.

Questioning accepted customs is healthy.

Marriage plays a central organizing role in Western society – it is by no means peripheral. *But marriage is not based on what people desire. *

For a long, long time it was not. Marriages were decided by the families, based upon social standing and money. Emotions, love were not just “frowned” upon, but were actually seriously discouraged. Was that a better arrangement? People were “forced” into loveless relationships, and there was no divorce. We can surmise that they were **not **unhappy - after all they never heard of anything else. The idea that it can be otherwise never even occurred to them. Of course infidelity was also rampant, but it was hidden.

When we do organize society around what people desire, I’m quite concerned about what will become of us.

Don’t be. The variety of individual decisions is the best testing ground for finding the “best” solutions. It is not a coincidence that material wealth was created in greatest abundance by the liberal West, with reckless competition. We can trust other people to find out what is best for them - with one proviso - do not interfere with outhers in their pursuit of their happiness. There is a need for government and regulation. But such interference should be restricted to allow everyone to pursue their own way.

 

[Spock]

Spock:

Can you give a clear definition or, conception, of what you mean by “horrendous (evil) acts”? With, perhaps, an example or two.

jd

From the top of my head, I can recall at least one specific instance. I cannot remember the name of the poster, and even if I did, I would not tell (lest I would be accused of an ad hominem attack).

It was about a rape situation. The attacker later repented, and went to educate other violent people. He might have made an impact, I would not know (and the poster did not know it either). His education “tour” might have prevented other rapes. I would not know that either, and neither did the poster. The point was - as asserted - that such a horrendous act was “turned around by God” - and something “good” came out of it.

It is possible that such event took place. The question is: “was it worth it”? Was it especially worth it for the victim? And the next question is: “how frequently did such reversal occur”? Once in a million cases? Fewer? What about the other rapes, where the attacker did not repent?

Such actions cannot be rationally defended, by saying that once in a blue moon something “good” **might **have come out of them. It is shameless rationalization and hypocricy.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Well, let me tell you: **nothing **is valuable in and by itself, except for its results.

Thanks for the information. I wish I could tell my friend Kant, but he seems to have left the building.

The point is that there is no “objective” measurement of happiness. It is a highly subjective feeling. This is the reason that “anything should go” as long as there is no interference with the same endeavors by others.

But people think all kinds of things will give them happiness, and they almost invariably discover that they were wrong. I am amenable to the concept of liberalism because – and I imagine you agree with me – the *best *way for people to learn the absurdity of their ways is experience. But the waters of liberalism must be “spiked”, as it were, with the corrective influence of the wisdom of ages. The culture must place value in the enactment of virtue, and I am afraid our culture increasingly considers virtue a thing of the past.

Perhaps this movement away from virtue only happens to coincide with the cultural acceptance homosexuality. Correlation is not causality. And yet, I wonder.

We are talking about sensible adults, who are entrusted to make decisions for themselves. It is their prerogative to make decisions, and to carry the consequences.

This is the dogma of liberalism.

Questioning accepted customs is healthy.

True, but there is always the danger of “throwing out the baby with the bathwater…”

For a long, long time it was not. Marriages were decided by the families, based upon social standing and money. Emotions, love were not just “frowned” upon, but were actually seriously discouraged. Was that a better arrangement? People were “forced” into loveless relationships, and there was no divorce. We can surmise that they were **not **unhappy - after all they never heard of anything else. The idea that it can be otherwise never even occurred to them. Of course infidelity was also rampant, but it was hidden.

If you make any serious investigation of the happiness levels of modern women, I’m afraid it would be difficult to argue that things have gotten better for them. The sexual revolution has given women more responsibility, and has emancipated men from the duty of caring for their children. From a purely utilitarian standpoint, maybe we ought to encourage all young men to be homosexuals, just so they won’t destroy the lives of the women they “love”.

Does a good parent focus on catering to a child’s wants? Just so, society should not be built around wants, but needs.

Don’t be. The variety of individual decisions is the best testing ground for finding the “best” solutions. It is not a coincidence that material wealth was created in greatest abundance by the liberal West, with reckless competition.

In the process, oppressing a great portion of the poorer people of the world, on whose backs we have made our millions. We may have recklessly pursued happiness, but at whose expense? (Alright, I admit it – I’m a closet Marxist!)

 

[LilyM]

Spock - sex being an expression of love cannot be evil? Those are your exact words.

Are you saying that a brother and sister who have sex with each other as an expression of their love are doing no evil? Even though incest does have all sorts of terrible consequences? Or a father who has sex with his daughter? Or a woman who has sex with a man who is not her husband? Even though many lives are ripped apart by adultery?

Of course all of the above are indeed doing all sorts of evil. And even though they may not see the evil, it nonetheless exists, much as the murderer who feels justified in killing someone who cuts them off in traffic might not see the evil they have done, but nonetheless it is present.

Society recognises those evils, even if a minority of individuals do not. Thus we are justified in locking away the murderer (in a psych ward if not in prison) and criminalising incest, whatever the feelings of the participants might be.