Jerry Mitchell wrote:
>
> > Mark Walker writes
> >
> > This is uselessly confusing IMO. Why not just avoid using the "M"
> > word, e.g., never say "That's immoral!!", "we much teach morality
> > in the school", etc.? A quite unnecessary (to me, at least until
> > you enlighten me) semantic quagmire opens up under us whenever we
> > try to discuss the "M" word in the abstract, instead of much more
> > usefully attacking the things we dislike or think are harmful to
> > people, e.g., adultery, disloyalty, brutality, political correctness,
> > divisiveness, racism, diversity, separatism, zenophobia, etc.
> >
> > I guess I have to go along with those who say that m******* is
> > relative, because that's closer to abandoning the term, and
> > doesn't allude to something in the universe that no one has
> > ever seen.
> >
> > Lee
> >
>
> I agree with the not teaching morality in school point you made, its
> unworkable with the public school system, but it would work with a private
> one though. On the other hand, failure to identity evil only benefits evil.
There is no reason why public schools cannot teach children how to
develop their own morality and ethics. Children are not objects, not the
property of their parents. It is an abuse of parental responsibility to
claim that parents have the absolute right to teach their kids as they
see fit. Kids are not clones, not robots. Furthermore, how can a parent
be truly confident that their own morality or ethics are really 'true'
if their kids are not free to determine and test the truth of them for
themselves? As I've said many times: "Virtuous behavior is only such
when it is freely chosen."
> There are those of us that believe in an "objective" morality based on
> reason. Participants in this philosophy are more then welcome to identify an
> evil and explain why it is so. Trying to obscure an immoral act is in effect
> immoral. The semantic quagmire you speak of is a problem and I'm not sure
> how to get around it as long as people of different base philosophies are
> talking. You cant agree on the definition of racism (sound familiar) if you
> cant even agree if existence is objective or relative (or on your axioms).
Yes, but this is all a matter of disagreement over facts, a sort of
Bayesian exchange. If two actors cannot agree on the facts of an
exchange, then no Bayesian interaction will occur.
> Remember the old saying "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing". Also, you
> can get into the semantic quagmire arguing your terms as well, like what is
> adultery. Remember the recent presidential fiasco where oral sex wasnt
> included in that definition or the LONG thread where we attemped
> unsuccessfully to define racism. Eventually, this attempt to dealt with
> concepts by working further away from the abstract and more on the concrete
> will fail as we try to determine the definition of what "IS" is. Very sad
> indeed.
Yes it is very sad, but again it can all be reduced to situations of
individuals arguing from non-Bayesian positions. An argument based on a
falsehood will always be at odds with those that are not.
For example (taking the 'oral sex is not sex' debate),
What is sex?
a) an act between two people that results in the creation of a viable
fetus.
b) an act between two people that results in the erotic stimulation of
all participants to full ejaculation
c) an act that results in some degree of erotic arousal by one or more
willing and consenting participants
d) any act, object, expression, color, etc that results in a person
experiencing even minimal involuntary reflexes that involve one or more
organs involved in sexual acts in any way.
It seems that Clinton does not think that c) is 'sex', at least for
anyone who does not initiate any action that causes others to ejaculate.
Of course, by denying (c), according to the stats, most sexual activity
by most people in their lives is not actually sex, including
masturbation.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:18 MDT