I think you and HD are in agreement. You really have not refuted anything he said. You actually agreed with him in the fact that drinking water has no consequence, but molesting children does. That is exactly what he was saying. You seem to evaluate whether a selfish intent is right or wrong in a given situation. It is not objectively true that selfishness is always wrong. It is not wrong to selfishly drink water. But it is wrong to selfishly gain pleasure in molesting a child.
Here's a suggestion John (and I mean this with nothing but the best possible intent);
when you read something that I (or anyone) have posted try not to jump to immediate conclusions about what you think I am saying. Read it a couple of times and try not to add content or draw "logical conclusions" about my intent. Instead ask me if I really mean what you think I might mean before objecting to that meaning. It will make the conversation much more pleasant for both of us.
I realize that this can be difficult sometimes (and I know that I am as guilty as anyone of assuming the intent of others) but if we all try to minimize the degree to which we assume the arguments of others and stick only to what they've explicitly stated we can save a lot of time and upset feelings over trying to correct one another's misplaced assumptions.
a point you seem to be missing in all of this discussion is that actions only require justification to others. A person rarely justifies their actions to themselves and then I would argue only as a kind of internal dialogue with themselves about how they are going to justify their actions to others.
The fact that you can think of examples of actions that seem at face value un-justifiable says nothing about the existence of an objective moral standard.
Rather it serves to focus our attention on what it is we really mean by a "justifiable" or "unjustifiable" action. Actions that require justification are first of all actions that have consequences for people other than ourselves. Those actions that are least justifiable are ones that have negative consequences for others and positive consequences for ourselves. What is brought into focus by this observation about what is "justifiable" and what is "unjustifiable" is (con't)
an implicit acknowledgment that no individuals liberty may take precedence over another individuals liberty. It seems reasonable to conclude that the tendency to observe this principle stems from our ability to empathize (indeed there is much research on empathy the points toward this conclusion). It is this ability to empathize and this tendency to see personal liberty as equally valuable in all persons that creates this seemingly "universal" sense that certain actions are unjustifiable.
The fact that a person cannot "justify" CM by appealing to the personal pleasure that they derive from it is only a reflection of the empathy that they have for the victim of CM and an acknowledgement that justification is required by others in their society.
The Dahmers of the world don't waste time with justification John. People who lack empathy just do whatever it is that pleases them. No regrets. Their only regret is being caught and put down like the animals they are.
You really should be more clear about what you are trying to get at John, rather than asking leading questions.
Asking whether we "ought" to have empathy or not seems to me to be missing the point. The fact is we do, and it seems that there is little that we can do to change this to any great effect. Some humans have more, some humans have less, some (I hesitate to call them human unless they learn to fake it well) have none.
Again John, I think that your question misses the point. Simply restating it as if doing so will force an answer doesn't do much for the conversation. I really don't think that asking whether we "ought" to feel empathy is meaningful. Ought implies can. In some sense it is like asking "ought we walk on water" or "ought we fly by flapping our arms". While I acknowledge that we have the ability to suppress or to exercise our natural ability to empathize, I think that we are limited (con't)
to a range of ability in this capacity. Just as some men are born with average legs and endurance, some are born with longer legs and a propensity for greater endurance and some are born with deformed legs, spinal bifida or a propensity to develop cerebral palsy or MS so I think that some people are naturally gifted and some are naturally impeded with respect to the ability to empathize.
Asking whether we "ought" to feel empathy is like asking whether we "ought" to be able to run. Most men have the capacity to run and most of those will exercise that capacity in their lifetimes. But suggesting that we "ought" to run and that some universal moral dictate commands that we run seems silly in light of the fact that there are some who simply CANNOT run no matter how much you think they "ought" to.
As I said before, sociopaths aren't wasting any time justifying their actions to themselves since by definition they lack the ability to empathize with their victims and so have no need of justification except as a tool to manipulate the people around them.
Let me ask you something. Do you really think that ONLY sociopaths molest children?
The guy who molested my sister was not a sociopath. He was a guy who made bad choices and was extremely selfish. He works for the city where I live.
I also know of a father who molested his daughter and was a part of a counseling group that I was apart of years ago. He and his family used to come to it. And he addressed, and apologized to his daughter for what he had done.
I don't buy that Sam. I have to restate it because you seem to think that all decision making has been stripped from us.
You make a sweeping generalization when it comes to anti-social behavior.
Not ALL of the people who engage in such behavior are out of control, or are incapable of making good choices. MANY of them could have done differently.
Yes, ought implies can. People are capable of so much more than you imply. And that's what I am addressing.
And I've done nothing to ignore the objective effects that people have on one another, please tell me what I've said that makes you think so.
What I've denied is that there is some objective standard, eternal, immutable that dictates what humans "ought" to do at all times and in all circumstances. This is a very different thing.
Empathy requires of us that we not only acknowledge but to some degree feel in ourselves the effects that we have on others.
A question for you John. Would sex with children be harmful in a society where it was the norm? Where it was never done in a way that was physically harmful? Where it was considered a right of passage celebrated by friends, and family? I think it's clear that it's the stigma that is attached which makes it harmful, not the act itself. Likewise in a society where prostitutes were respected like Doctors, and Lawyers are in our society, women would aspire to careers as prostitutes.
The fact that things which would normally be considered "immoral" aren't considered immoral in certain circumstances disproves the idea of objective morality. We also consider cannibalism "immoral", but what if it was considered the utmost sign of respect to eat grandpa after he passed away. In that case there would be no stigma. There is nothing inherently immoral about cannibalism.
Obviously that wouldn't be done if it were, since I clearly stated "never done in a way that was physically harmful". Did you have a real comment, or are you just trolling?, OR are you just so ignorant that your pea brain can't think of any type of sex that wouldn't involve penetration? Just asking.
Perhaps I overreacted, but I specifically said "was never done in a way that was physically harmful" which I think pretty clearly rules out penetration of a nine year old, so it struck me as a deliberately annoying response. I also did call him an ignorant pea brain, I just asked. :p
Well like I said, mostly what happened to your sister is what will happen to most. That very well may be reality. From the perspective of the molester, they may feel it is justified because there is no harm (in their mind) or that they will be helped. They could be wrong, but in regards to intent, they are justified.
Punishment isn't necessarily done for the well-being of the child. Intention can be negative. A parent may want to shut the child up, or "teach them a lesson" in which the lesson is just to obey. It could have the unintended side effect of discipline, and it's lawful for parents to do this if they don't cross certain lines
This is why you can't limit the reasoning to "pleasure" because a decision is weighed with both negatives and positives. You have to get their reasoning on the negatives.
Well if you talk to NAMBLA, not that I value their opinions, they believe they are joining in a loving union with a child and that there is historical precedent for such relationships.
I don't think it works.
But let's say I granted your entire premise that it is always unjustifiable . . . where does your point go from there, so I can better understand where you are coming from and where you are trying to go.
I think it's perfectly valid to presume that when a child is molested, s/he is harmed by that action. However, if even one child was ever molested but NOT harmed, then it cannot be concluded that the harm to the child is the basis for the immorality of the action+motivation. I have read testimony from some 'victims' that would indicate this has occurred.
So the question must be asked: exactly what is the mechanism by which we identify that an action+motivation is immoral.
I think you and HD are in agreement. You really have not refuted anything he said. You actually agreed with him in the fact that drinking water has no consequence, but molesting children does. That is exactly what he was saying. You seem to evaluate whether a selfish intent is right or wrong in a given situation. It is not objectively true that selfishness is always wrong. It is not wrong to selfishly drink water. But it is wrong to selfishly gain pleasure in molesting a child.
Fishqueen1972 10 months ago
Here's a suggestion John (and I mean this with nothing but the best possible intent);
when you read something that I (or anyone) have posted try not to jump to immediate conclusions about what you think I am saying. Read it a couple of times and try not to add content or draw "logical conclusions" about my intent. Instead ask me if I really mean what you think I might mean before objecting to that meaning. It will make the conversation much more pleasant for both of us.
sammcalpine 2 years ago
I realize that this can be difficult sometimes (and I know that I am as guilty as anyone of assuming the intent of others) but if we all try to minimize the degree to which we assume the arguments of others and stick only to what they've explicitly stated we can save a lot of time and upset feelings over trying to correct one another's misplaced assumptions.
sammcalpine 2 years ago
John,
a point you seem to be missing in all of this discussion is that actions only require justification to others. A person rarely justifies their actions to themselves and then I would argue only as a kind of internal dialogue with themselves about how they are going to justify their actions to others.
The fact that you can think of examples of actions that seem at face value un-justifiable says nothing about the existence of an objective moral standard.
(con't)
sammcalpine 2 years ago
Rather it serves to focus our attention on what it is we really mean by a "justifiable" or "unjustifiable" action. Actions that require justification are first of all actions that have consequences for people other than ourselves. Those actions that are least justifiable are ones that have negative consequences for others and positive consequences for ourselves. What is brought into focus by this observation about what is "justifiable" and what is "unjustifiable" is (con't)
sammcalpine 2 years ago
an implicit acknowledgment that no individuals liberty may take precedence over another individuals liberty. It seems reasonable to conclude that the tendency to observe this principle stems from our ability to empathize (indeed there is much research on empathy the points toward this conclusion). It is this ability to empathize and this tendency to see personal liberty as equally valuable in all persons that creates this seemingly "universal" sense that certain actions are unjustifiable.
sammcalpine 2 years ago
The fact that a person cannot "justify" CM by appealing to the personal pleasure that they derive from it is only a reflection of the empathy that they have for the victim of CM and an acknowledgement that justification is required by others in their society.
The Dahmers of the world don't waste time with justification John. People who lack empathy just do whatever it is that pleases them. No regrets. Their only regret is being caught and put down like the animals they are.
sammcalpine 2 years ago
Ought we have empathy Samm?
If you deny the "objective" effects you cause to someone else, or ignore them, you ignore reality.
vbfl920 2 years ago
You really should be more clear about what you are trying to get at John, rather than asking leading questions.
Asking whether we "ought" to have empathy or not seems to me to be missing the point. The fact is we do, and it seems that there is little that we can do to change this to any great effect. Some humans have more, some humans have less, some (I hesitate to call them human unless they learn to fake it well) have none.
sammcalpine 2 years ago
Well, not all of us do Sam. You said it yourself.
So, ought we?
Or only some of us?
I'm not really talking about you personally. I am talking about someone who molests a child.
Ought they have had empathy towards that child or not?
vbfl920 2 years ago
Again John, I think that your question misses the point. Simply restating it as if doing so will force an answer doesn't do much for the conversation. I really don't think that asking whether we "ought" to feel empathy is meaningful. Ought implies can. In some sense it is like asking "ought we walk on water" or "ought we fly by flapping our arms". While I acknowledge that we have the ability to suppress or to exercise our natural ability to empathize, I think that we are limited (con't)
sammcalpine 2 years ago 2
to a range of ability in this capacity. Just as some men are born with average legs and endurance, some are born with longer legs and a propensity for greater endurance and some are born with deformed legs, spinal bifida or a propensity to develop cerebral palsy or MS so I think that some people are naturally gifted and some are naturally impeded with respect to the ability to empathize.
sammcalpine 2 years ago 2
Asking whether we "ought" to feel empathy is like asking whether we "ought" to be able to run. Most men have the capacity to run and most of those will exercise that capacity in their lifetimes. But suggesting that we "ought" to run and that some universal moral dictate commands that we run seems silly in light of the fact that there are some who simply CANNOT run no matter how much you think they "ought" to.
sammcalpine 2 years ago 2
As I said before, sociopaths aren't wasting any time justifying their actions to themselves since by definition they lack the ability to empathize with their victims and so have no need of justification except as a tool to manipulate the people around them.
sammcalpine 2 years ago 2
Let me ask you something. Do you really think that ONLY sociopaths molest children?
The guy who molested my sister was not a sociopath. He was a guy who made bad choices and was extremely selfish. He works for the city where I live.
I also know of a father who molested his daughter and was a part of a counseling group that I was apart of years ago. He and his family used to come to it. And he addressed, and apologized to his daughter for what he had done.
Neither were out of control.
vbfl920 2 years ago
*Asking whether we "ought" to feel empathy is like asking whether we "ought" to run*
sammcalpine 2 years ago 2
I don't buy that Sam. I have to restate it because you seem to think that all decision making has been stripped from us.
You make a sweeping generalization when it comes to anti-social behavior.
Not ALL of the people who engage in such behavior are out of control, or are incapable of making good choices. MANY of them could have done differently.
Yes, ought implies can. People are capable of so much more than you imply. And that's what I am addressing.
vbfl920 2 years ago
And I've done nothing to ignore the objective effects that people have on one another, please tell me what I've said that makes you think so.
What I've denied is that there is some objective standard, eternal, immutable that dictates what humans "ought" to do at all times and in all circumstances. This is a very different thing.
Empathy requires of us that we not only acknowledge but to some degree feel in ourselves the effects that we have on others.
sammcalpine 2 years ago
You have a philosopher's beard. I think it makes you much more intelligent.
longhornman99001 2 years ago
lol.
justchemicalz 2 years ago
In advanced dungeons and dragons, you get a +4 intelligence if you have a beard.
Beards pwn.
vbfl920 2 years ago
A question for you John. Would sex with children be harmful in a society where it was the norm? Where it was never done in a way that was physically harmful? Where it was considered a right of passage celebrated by friends, and family? I think it's clear that it's the stigma that is attached which makes it harmful, not the act itself. Likewise in a society where prostitutes were respected like Doctors, and Lawyers are in our society, women would aspire to careers as prostitutes.
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
(cont)
The fact that things which would normally be considered "immoral" aren't considered immoral in certain circumstances disproves the idea of objective morality. We also consider cannibalism "immoral", but what if it was considered the utmost sign of respect to eat grandpa after he passed away. In that case there would be no stigma. There is nothing inherently immoral about cannibalism.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
how could physically penetrating a nine year old girl be anything that wasn't physically harmful?
legodesi 2 years ago
Obviously that wouldn't be done if it were, since I clearly stated "never done in a way that was physically harmful". Did you have a real comment, or are you just trolling?, OR are you just so ignorant that your pea brain can't think of any type of sex that wouldn't involve penetration? Just asking.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Chill dog!
Legodesi is one of the more smooth theists on Youtube. No need to flip tha switches lol
vbfl920 2 years ago
Perhaps I overreacted, but I specifically said "was never done in a way that was physically harmful" which I think pretty clearly rules out penetration of a nine year old, so it struck me as a deliberately annoying response. I also did call him an ignorant pea brain, I just asked. :p
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
i didn't do it to deliberately annoy, i just responded rather hastily.
legodesi 2 years ago
Or perhaps I misunderstood your question.
legodesi 2 years ago
Well like I said, mostly what happened to your sister is what will happen to most. That very well may be reality. From the perspective of the molester, they may feel it is justified because there is no harm (in their mind) or that they will be helped. They could be wrong, but in regards to intent, they are justified.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Punishment isn't necessarily done for the well-being of the child. Intention can be negative. A parent may want to shut the child up, or "teach them a lesson" in which the lesson is just to obey. It could have the unintended side effect of discipline, and it's lawful for parents to do this if they don't cross certain lines
This is why you can't limit the reasoning to "pleasure" because a decision is weighed with both negatives and positives. You have to get their reasoning on the negatives.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Well if you talk to NAMBLA, not that I value their opinions, they believe they are joining in a loving union with a child and that there is historical precedent for such relationships.
I don't think it works.
But let's say I granted your entire premise that it is always unjustifiable . . . where does your point go from there, so I can better understand where you are coming from and where you are trying to go.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
I think it's perfectly valid to presume that when a child is molested, s/he is harmed by that action. However, if even one child was ever molested but NOT harmed, then it cannot be concluded that the harm to the child is the basis for the immorality of the action+motivation. I have read testimony from some 'victims' that would indicate this has occurred.
So the question must be asked: exactly what is the mechanism by which we identify that an action+motivation is immoral.
jagmarz 2 years ago