Izzy and the big philosophical questions...

[Woodsie]

If murder is considered to be a more serious offense than rape then why can you murder an animal but not rape one? (I'm not interested in doing either 🙂 )

Now here is a topic I am not prepared to engage in .... animal rights .... the only logical conclusion is that I would end up calling somebody a numbnut .....

The only thing I will place on record is that my personal bias is that I don't like the thought of some strange man copulating with my dinner .....

 

[mozgrame]

Now here is a topic I am not prepared to engage in .... animal rights .... the only logical conclusion is that I would end up calling somebody a numbnut .....

The only thing I will place on record is that my personal bias is that I don't like the thought of some strange man copulating with my dinner .....

Hindu's cringe collectively.

LOL!

 

[Woodsie]

Are we looking for truth...or just trying to find evidence to back up our own personal beliefs here?

Not being of a philosophical nature .... i find the truth a bit scary and over-rated .... or maybe I have just been pavloff dogged by the missus saying ... "we need to talk" .....

 

[MuzztheEagle]

But that does not address the issue it .... it is your bias speaking .... by the logic of the arguement .... if enough people are prepared to use power and force .... then the usage of that power and force is not abhorent ....

I'm addressing your logic when determining your moral stance on the two issues. That there is a significant issue of consent and personal harm which you left out of your argument. Don't you think this would have a role to play in your decision?
What's more, do you think your bias towards paedophiles (who have not committed an act of sexual abuse) would limit the solutions you would be willing to allow in order to prevent cases of child sex abuse?

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Are we looking for truth...or just trying to find evidence to back up our own personal beliefs here?

In what regard?
If this is a reference to the animal rape/murder thing, I'm not trying to push one idea over another. I just think it's an interesting topic when it comes to ideas of morality within society. For me it's not necessarily what you believe but why.

 

[mozgrame]

In what regard?
If this is a reference to the animal rape/murder thing, I'm not trying to push one idea over another. I just think it's an interesting topic when it comes to ideas of morality within society. For me it's not necessarily what you believe but why.

Then you're looking for truth. What conclusions have you come to so far? Are they different to the personal views you held when you started the thread?

 

[Woodsie]

What's more, do you think your bias towards paedophiles (who have not committed an act of sexual abuse) would limit the solutions you would be willing to allow in order to prevent cases of child sex abuse?

I would prefer you to use the term ... my bias against paedophiles .....

But you have moved on to preventing something you have not yet established as wrong .... from the logic of the first arguement ... it holds that if a sufficient percentage of people are prepared to use power and cause harm .... then is it still abhorent? .. is it wrong .... or is the original logic wrong ?

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Then you're looking for truth. What conclusions have you come to so far? Are they different to the personal views you held when you started the thread?

My aim in starting the thread was to highlight the fact that many individuals use bias to reach conclusions about many ideas presented on Silvertails (from what a belief in God entitles us to do to whether Tom Wright would have been the next messiah had he stayed with Manly) and to improve my methods in counteracting these arguments when they occur.
I do not expect to gain a single enlightening answer but hopefully I have picked up some skill in the art of argumentative persuasion and made some others think more objectively when it comes to their own ideas.

 

[Woodsie]

I feel used ....

 

[MuzztheEagle]

I would prefer you to use the term ... my bias against paedophiles .....

But you have moved on to preventing something you have not yet established as wrong .... from the logic of the first arguement ... it holds that if a sufficient percentage of people are prepared to use power and cause harm .... then is it still abhorent? .. is it wrong .... or is the original logic wrong ?

I'm afraid you've lost me.
My initial point was that you cannot compare homosexual desires with the sexual abuse of children (by paedophiles). They are separate concepts. If you compare a homosexual relationship between two consenting adults to a sexual relationship between an adult and a child then there is a clear moral difference.

 

[Woodsie]

I'm afraid you've lost me.
My initial point was that you cannot compare homosexual desires with the sexual abuse of children. They are separate concepts. If you compare a homosexual relationship between two consenting adults to a sexual relationship between an adult and a child then there is a clear moral difference.

No .... they are both human traits ... if we logically accept one due to the % of practishioners .... then why not the other ... your introduction of consent is interesting .. but is still simply a part of that trait ..... so what causes us to have a differing view of the acceptability of those traits .... our logic or our civilised biases ... or the combination of both ... are we approaching wisdom ....

 

[MuzztheEagle]

No .... they are both human traits ... if we logically accept one due to the % of practishioners .... then why not the other ... your introduction of consent is interesting .. but is still simply a part of that trait ..... so what causes us to have a differing view of the acceptability of those traits .... our logic or our civilised biases ... or the combination of both ... are we approaching wisdom ....

No, one is a trait the other is an action.
You need to compare the traits for things to be a fair comparison.
You could equally compare homosexual desires to the rape of women by heterosexual men. Would this give you a bias against hetro men?

 

[Woodsie]

Would this give you a bias against hetro men?

Are you starting to come down on the side of biases being a good thing?

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Are you starting to come down on the side of biases being a good thing?

????
No. I think your bias is based on flawed logic.
I also believe that your bias could result in you ruling out solutions to the problem of paedophiles sexually abusing children.
I think we may need to back up and first acknowledge that a paedophile is someone with a sexual attraction to children and not necessarily a sex offender.

 

[Woodsie]

????
No. I think your bias is based on flawed logic.
I also believe that your bias could result in you ruling out solutions to the problem of paedophiles sexually abusing children.
I think we may need to back up and first acknowledge that a paedophile is someone with a sexual attraction to children and not necessarily a sex offender.

or ... as I suggest ... back up to the point .... at which point does a particular human behavour become acceptable as a norm ... what % of humans would have to engage in it for it to not be considered an abnormal behavour ... and you can't just say the use of force ... because the use of force is that behavour .....

It is your bias that you continue to see one behavour as needing prevention without first addressing why you have made that decision .... logic or bias ...

 

[MuzztheEagle]

or ... as I suggest ... back up to the point .... at which point does a particular human behavour become acceptable as a norm ... what % of humans would have to engage in it for it to not be considered an abnormal behavour ... and you can't just say the use of force ... because the use of force is that behavour .....

It is your bias that you continue to see one behavour as needing prevention without first addressing why you have made that decision .... logic or bias ...

Normality and the percentage engaged is irrelevant. It's the impact of actions that is determines whether it is moral or not. If if I wore dresses as a man it would be considered abnormal but not immoral or unnatural.
So if a paedophile does not engage in any form of abuse can they be considered immoral?

 

[Woodsie]

The percentage engaged is irrelevant. It's the impact of actions that is determines whether it is moral or not. If if I wore dresses as a man it would be considered abnormal but not immoral or unnatural.
So if a paedophile does not engage in any form of abuse can they be considered immoral?

You are getting hung up on the paedophile case .... but if enough men wore dresses (kilts) it would no longer be considered abnormal ... which is my point ... and logically if enough people engagef in abuse ... that logically could no longer be considered abnormal ...

Which get's us back to your original question .... how as individuals and as a society do we judge and determine these issues ... through research, knowledge and logic ... or by a bias which is the result of the accumulated wisdom of generations of humans living together ....

The human condition is such that the complexities will always throw up issues that confuse and frustrate both logic and folklore .... I think both sides of the brain need to be used on ocassions ...

As to who makes the decisions .... what if the person deciding is a highly functioning sociopath with nil empathy ... or an emotional wreak paralysed by over empathicationism .....

 

[MuzztheEagle]

You are getting hung up on the paedophile case .... but if enough men wore dresses (kilts) it would no longer be considered abnormal ... which is my point ... and logically if enough people engagef in abuse ... that logically could no longer be considered abnormal ...

Which get's us back to your original question .... how as individuals and as a society do we judge and determine these issues ... through research, knowledge and logic ... or by a bias which is the result of the accumulated wisdom of generations of humans living together ....

The human condition is such that the complexities will always throw up issues that confuse and frustrate both logic and folklore .... I think both sides of the brain need to be used on ocassions ...

As to who makes the decisions .... what if the person deciding is a highly functioning sociopath with nil empathy ... or an emotional wreak paralysed by over empathicationism .....

But refer back to moz's mention of the golden rule (before he then mutilated it). This is the idea from which (logical) morality stems. I should be allowed to do whatever crazy **** I want until it starts to impact on others. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Why should I care if someone wants to wear a bag over their head unless they are planning to drive a car disregard my person safety.

The example that you used that homosexuality is acceptable because it exists in a significant proportion of the population is flawed and unnecessary. It is, by default acceptable as it does not impact those that it does not involve. The population argument is simply a counter argument to the idea that it doesn't meet the status quo.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Society does determine what is right through both logic and social constructs. The bigger question is what should we use?
The problem with social norms is that they encourage and rely on biases. Although this can be useful to make faster decisions and set a standard for society it is important to remember that bias can be used to dictate right from wrong without reasoning. This is what religion does and it's why we have multiple loonies telling us that God is punishing all of us for letting the homos run rampant.

 

[Woodsie]

But refer back to moz's mention of the golden rule (before he then mutilated it). This is the idea from which (logical) morality stems. I should be allowed to do whatever crazy **** I want until it starts to impact on others. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Why should I care if someone wants to wear a bag over their head unless they are planning to drive a car disregard my person safety.

The example that you used that homosexuality is acceptable because it exists in a significant proportion of the population is flawed and unnecessary. It is, by default acceptable as it does not impact those that it does not involve. The population argument is simply a counter argument to the idea that it doesn't meet the status quo.

Agreed ... but now we have gone full circle ... who decides that the golden rule is valid and whether it should be universally accepted or amended ... and how do they decide .. with bias or logic ....

Psss ... I have a head ache ... listening to you and @mozgrame would give Plato hiccups .... I am just glad that @Moondog hasn't jumped in with a disertation on the existential meaning of edible underwear ....