The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Philosophy

Philosophy Religions, schools of thought, matters of importance and navel-gazing

View Poll Results: Is being gay morally wrong?
Yes 6 11.76%
No 42 82.35%
Depends 0 0%
Other 3 5.88%
Voters: 51. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-18-2007, 01:15 PM   #31
LJ
i am myself
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: via blackberry, maybe
Posts: 750
well.


Quote:
to construct "rights"
this has been a recent topic of debate. and that may just be a coincedental choice of words there. I don't believe that rights are constructed. I believe they simply are. which leads you down the road toward a tree falling in the woods......are rights there without someone to excercise or defend them?

BUT....you may have meant construct in the 'define' sense?
__________________
Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show ...
-C.Dickens
LJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 02:47 PM   #32
smoothmoniker
to live and die in LA
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,090
Yes, by construct I mean define and defend. Use my original language, if it's less loaded:

Quote:
defending the realness of "rights"
__________________
to live and die in LA
smoothmoniker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 06:34 PM   #33
LJ
i am myself
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: via blackberry, maybe
Posts: 750
Quote:
definition of morality from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

First published Wed Apr 17, 2002; substantive revision Thu Apr 21, 2005
The term “morality” can be used either

descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
How morality is defined plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take “morality” to refer to an actually existing code of conduct is quite likely to lead to some form of relativism. Among those who use “morality” normatively, different specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would put forward a code of conduct result in different kinds of moral theories. To claim that “morality” in the normative sense does not have any referent, that is, to claim that there is no code of conduct that, under any plausible specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons, results in moral skepticism. Thus, although not widely discussed, the definition of morality has great significance for moral theory.

it seems that the conventional definition of 'rights' has, as you've inferred, some consideration for what is considered to be 'moral' behavior. That is, it is considered immoral to violate another's rights.

I guess what i meant when i said that there are no morals, is that I see morals as having their roots in societal opinion of acceptable behaviors. Therefore, you inherently sanction those morals by existing within a given society. If you choose to exist without that society, the morals that come with that society fall away. As is your right to do. (not saying i would do, or recommend this, btw)

If you exist outside of society and society's moral influence, you are left with only your own code to guide you. your personal morals. your rights.

I said there are no morals. there is also no spoon. know'm sayin'?
__________________
Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show ...
-C.Dickens
LJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 07:11 PM   #34
Undertoad
Radical Centrist
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
Undertoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 07:14 PM   #35
Kerotan
Half-Awesome
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad View Post
Wow epic.
__________________
Is it possible to go off topic in a Philosophy forum?

Answers on a postcard please.
Kerotan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 08:05 PM   #36
smoothmoniker
to live and die in LA
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJ View Post
If you exist outside of society and society's moral influence, you are left with only your own code to guide you. your personal morals. your rights.
Rights have no meaning in that context. A right is a boundary restricting the unjust actions of others toward you.

What possible meaning does the phrase "I have a right to life" mean if not "My possession of my life is fair and just, and others ought not act to remove it from me, and I am justified in acting to protect myself from those who do." What could it possibly mean to have a "right to life" if a person is in isolation?
__________________
to live and die in LA

Last edited by smoothmoniker; 12-18-2007 at 08:06 PM. Reason: "unjust" for "justified", to add clarity
smoothmoniker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 08:45 PM   #37
LJ
i am myself
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: via blackberry, maybe
Posts: 750
is that right? that's kind of what i meant by this:

Quote:
which leads you down the road toward a tree falling in the woods......are rights there without someone to excercise or defend them?
I guess i left out the part about the 'person to defend them from' ....although it was inferred in the 'defend them' part.....

in isolation, your rights do not evaporate though, do they? if the tree falls, it still makes a sound.....doesn't it?

in the context of the original question, my point was more along the lines of: A judgement of morality is only as meaningful as the judged allow it to be. If two same sex people find that they love each other...it is only their morality that applies. The reality is subjective. no spoon. no morals.
sorry i'm repeating myself...i'm sure you get what i'm saying. you're smarter than I am.
__________________
Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show ...
-C.Dickens
LJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 09:44 PM   #38
Drax
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Gallman, MS, USA
Posts: 1,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJ View Post
I said there are no morals. there is also no spoon. know'm sayin'?
The Matrix has us?
Drax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 10:10 PM   #39
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJ View Post
in the context of the original question, my point was more along the lines of: A judgement of morality is only as meaningful as the judged allow it to be. If two same sex people find that they love each other...it is only their morality that applies. The reality is subjective. no spoon. no morals.
But what about the morality with the confines of the society that they live in? The pressures and restrictions, dare I say, moral fiber which is within their society dictates does it not? They may be perfectly happy within the privacy of their own home, but once they venture out into "society" are they not then subject, rightly or wrongly, to the morality - the ethicality - that society has predetermined to be acceptable?
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

Last edited by classicman; 12-18-2007 at 10:46 PM.
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 10:34 PM   #40
LJ
i am myself
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: via blackberry, maybe
Posts: 750
do your morals change because of those of the people you move among?
__________________
Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show ...
-C.Dickens
LJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 10:41 PM   #41
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJ View Post
do your morals change because of (the people) you move among?
Personally? No of course not, yours?

I was trying to create the situation where two different sets of moral exist and collide. What is the outcome of that? Where in the outside world one set is more prominent whereas in another situation the inverse is true.

(Sorry, I am having a difficult time explaining/describing this)
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 10:42 PM   #42
LJ
i am myself
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: via blackberry, maybe
Posts: 750
wrong is in the eye of the beholder?
__________________
Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show ...
-C.Dickens
LJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 10:44 PM   #43
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJ View Post
wrong is in the eye of the beholder?
not always though
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 11:29 PM   #44
smoothmoniker
to live and die in LA
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,090
LJ, I think I understand what you're saying. What I'm trying to hit at is that invoking the idea "rights" means you're trying to introduce some governing principle into the interaction between two people. If someone is trying to kill me, saying "you ought not to do that; I have a right to live" and saying "I wish you wouldn't do that" are two very different things, no?

The appeal to "rights" says that something should limit the actions of others, something other than my preference.

If we can agree on that much (I hope I'm not presuming too much), then the next logical question is this: is there any good reason why we should call that external thing "moral"? It sure waddles and quacks like morality.
__________________
to live and die in LA

Last edited by smoothmoniker; 12-18-2007 at 11:30 PM. Reason: invoke -> invoking
smoothmoniker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2007, 12:08 AM   #45
LJ
i am myself
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: via blackberry, maybe
Posts: 750
Quote:
any good reason why we shouldn't call that external thing "moral"?
I assume?

well, no...i guess not....

you're just pointing out that rights are based on 'moral' precepts? and so a violation of a right is a violation of a moral?
__________________
Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show ...
-C.Dickens
LJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:47 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.