J
jman507
Guest
Tell them that you were thinking you ought not punch them in the face, but since there really is no ‘ought’ it really doesn’t matter, if you do or do not.
- Status
T
Topher
Guest
Natural law also states that when things are not used in accord with their nature, then negative consequences result. When tomato plants are not treated in accord with their nature, i.e. they are not given sunlight, water, and the proper temperature, then they will not produce tomatos. When sex is not used in accord with its nature, the result is STDs, broken hearts, an increase in the vice of selfishiness, etc. Therefore, if one wants to avoid these negative consequences, then one OUGHT to use sex in accord with its nature which is the union of a husband and wife and procreation, bonding and babies.
2
2perfection
Guest
Thank you for your response. It’s interesting, but I was trying to avoid arguments from design because ID is a big topic.
Still…
Function is a subjective attribute applied by the observer. For example, a tree falls and the trunk bridges a ravine. Some time later I find the tree trunk and use it to corss the ravine. The tree trunk had the function of being a bridge without being designed to be bridge. A local bridge exists along the path I walk my dog, when it rains I shelter under it. It’ function as shelter is not related iot ts function as part of a road, it was not designed to be a shelter, yet it fulfills that function well.
Evolution is not ‘random’. The selective process (natural or unnatural selection) act as a non-random filter on variation across what is termed a fitness landscape, creating differentials in organisms propensity to survive.
Thus, function does not indicate design, but selection on natural variation can look like design.
I dont know what you mean by begging question? Is that like “if the universe is designed, who designed the designer?”
No, function is subjective. To you sex may be about reproduction, but to me it may be about socialising. The function is defined by how it is used
Objective reality clearly indicates that there are many functions for sex including reproduction, pleasure, stress relief and as a weapon.
If one is having sex for pleasure, you ‘ought’ to maximise that pleasure. if you are having sex for reproduction you ‘ought’ to maximise reproductive chances.
I didnt understand this? Quantum mechanics led to the end of determinism, relatively and psychology to the elimination of objective fact.
No, the thread is about bridging the is-ought gap. You have not bridged it, you have gone precisely from it to ought without demonstrating the logical inevitability.
For those to whom sex is primarily about pleasure, the ought to maximise it.
But you do need absolute knowledge to exclude something that is possible and pleasurable.
In anycase, you argument is of no use to the originator of this thread because it does not bridge the is-ought divide.
And that’s leaving aside the false arguments about objectivety and function.
B
buffalo
Guest
two males or a bunch on an island - what will happen in 1 generation?
2
2perfection
Guest
Answered before:
- “Get them to realize that without procreative sex they would not be alive, to even argue the point with you”
This argument just shunts the is-ought gap further up the tree. If you like, try “without ants there wouldnt be ant-eaters”…“so what?”
A bunch of guys on an island, 1 generation there isnt anyone on the island…so what?*
B
buffalo
Guest
It’s obvious isn’t it?
J
john_doran
Guest
just read this, and he basically gets it right: the is-ought problem is avoided simply by recognizing a fundamental difference between theoretical reasoning and practical reasoning and that each have at their respective foundations certain self-evident principles. for theoretical reasoning, it’s the “is” propositions such as the principle of non-contradiction; for practical reasoning, it’s the “ought” propositions, such as “good ought to be pursued”.
basically, there’s only an is-ought problem if you assume that “ought” statements are derived from “is” statements. but they’re not - both are independent categories of reasoning: the “is” and the “is to be”.
2
2perfection
Guest
No people. So what?
2
2perfection
Guest
john doran:
Luckily I have an example.
My friend John is 45, he has 2 ex-wives, 4 children, 3 grand-children and a husband (a police officer). He has trascended the is-ought problem.
But natural law arguments atempt to derive the ought from the is. He essentially confirms there is no link.
Luckily I have an example.
My friend John is 45, he has 2 ex-wives, 4 children, 3 grand-children and a husband (a police officer). He has trascended the is-ought problem.
2
2perfection
Guest
Incidently, tao women or a whole bunch of women on an island…and one sadistic heterosexual sadistic rapist man.
What will happen?
V
Valz
Guest
So what if ‘without sex this conversation woud never take place’? This is the same is-ought gap. Just because we are having this conversation does not mean we should be having this conversation. What is so important about this
And with that you fall into nihilism. But you of course contradict yourself by assiging value to the is-ought problem. But the is-ought problem self-destructs once you apply it’s value to itself.
Just because one cannot derive an ought from an is does not means that one ought derive an ought from an is!
Why does Hume thinks that one ought derive and ought from an is?
Valz
2
2perfection
Guest
What is it with you people? Is there a ‘bang head’ icon?
If you cannot give an aswer as to why human life has value, say so. Labeling something (nihilism) is not answering the question. The question is “so what”?
So what?
In Japan they have the concept of 5 whys. You do not know the answer to q question until you have asked “why” 5 times and got the answer.Just because one cannot derive an ought from an is does not means that one ought derive an ought from an is!
maybe this would be helpful in these debates.
V
Valz
Guest
Nope. What you are talking about here, is not the biological function that I was talking about which is objective. There are stuff which we come up with which are subjective, but I would rather call them contingent upon individual perception. But our biology is not one of thoe things. We do not create sexual organs, nor do we decide what function to give them, they come with ther assigned functions, just as we are born with lungs to breath. We do not get to decide what we do with our lungs, they just work the way they ought ot work. Ditto for sexual organs, they work on a specific way which is what it is in spite of what we think about it.
But it is not about look, it is about how things work, that is what science describes, how nature works. We do not assign the function to this or that thing ourselves, it is already there, we merely discover it.
You are missing the point, this is not about what is or is not to you or me. It is about how things are by themselves apart from our own subjective opinion. It is the same as 2+2=4. Neither you nor I have any say about the matter, it just is. Things are what they are, facts are facts. Emotions and subjective wants and desires come second and ought to be considered in light of the objective facts.
No, you are again mixing up objective reality with individual desires. The sole function of sex is to procreate, that people derive pleasure from it, is of secondary importance and should not abrogate the primary function, namely procration.
Elimination of objective fact? Then dying is subjective? Breathing is optional? The fact that the herb grows is subjective and not objective fact? The earth orbits around the sun only subjectively? Please, if anything science has rooted people in a more clear and objective view of reality. That is what the scientific method is all about.
They cannot be false because you saying that they are false presupposes an objective standard of sorts by which to judge them.
Valz
V
Valz
Guest
Would you be willing to let us kill yourself to see if human life has value?
Valz
J
john_doran
Guest
not all of them. the natural law theory of grisez, finnis, and boyle doesn’t - it proceeds in precisely the manner i described: by beginning with the principles of practical reason and going from there.
i don’t get it.
G
Gabriel_Gale
Guest
You confuse function with desires. Functions are universal according to the nature of that creature (innate). The tree has a function to assimilate nutrients, sunlight, grow and finally reproduce. The function of the tree is independent of any of my desires and universal to trees. The tree did not adapt itself to provide a bird a nest or you a home.
In regards to sex, the function of sexual intercourse is so obvious that one must sabotage that function through contraception and abortion.
In this way sex is no different from other bodily functions. If I want to maximize pleasure from eating, vomiting or diuretics are ways to sabotage eating. The need to sabotage a function is evidence of that function. If someone is raped, I doubt that he or she must find ways to block the pleasure.
No, we have many subjective desires for which sex serves as a means. Sex only has one function.
Following your logic, one could say that the function of breathing is to inhale tobacco smoke or the function of circulation is to deliver heroin to the brain. The function of the breathing and circulation are so innate, universal and independent of any desire except the life. As in sex, desires to smoke or shoot up actually interferes with these functions.
So, our desires ought to be in union with healthy, bodily functions is a self evident ought.
B
buffalo
Guest
Banghead! :banghead:What is it with you people?
.
2
2perfection
Guest
Thanks.
There’s a thread coming up named after you.
2
2perfection
Guest
Not sure I would enjoy being murdered, but in the grand scheme of things I doubt see it makes that much difference.
- Status