|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
randman, I have to echo mick's question.
I agree that there is no scientific reason for people not to engage in various sexual behaviors, but how does this lead to the implication that science leads to such behavior? Further, if science did lead to such behavior (which it doesn't, but let's suppose), what is the problem? "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hello, randman.
No, I still don't quite get your idea. Well, I think I might, but I am uncertain enough that I don't want to risk putting words into your mouth. But let's try this: let me explain my position on the relationship between science and ethics, and let's see if this touches on your points. If so, then we can continue from there; otherwise, you can try to clarify your position again. Science does not, and cannot, determine what morality is or should be. Science is completely amoral -- it is, at best, a description of the real world based as much as possible on facts (and the logical inferences to which those facts lead). These facts, though, never have anything to do directly with morality. On the other hand, the science can (and should) inform ethics. Let me explain what I mean by this through an example. Let us suppose that my ethics are based on the idea that the general happiness of the great majority of people should be increased as much as possible, and that unhappiness and misery should be decreased -- an ethical theory based on utilitarianism. Let's not worry too much here about what this means in detail, how we determine happiness and unhappiness, or the obvious dilemmas that can (and do) arise. Let's just take this as a given for the sake of illustration. Now let's take one of your examples: pedophilia. Let us suppose that a credible program of scientific research has shown that children (or at least a large enough portion of children) are invariably harmed through sexual encounters with adults. Then, according to the ethical stance I have adopted, science is telling me that I should be against sex with children. However, it is not science that is determining my ethical stand; my ethical stand is determined by my concern for the happiness and well being for children, and science is merely helping me decide how best to provide for the well being of children. On the other hand, suppose that a credible program of scientific research has shown that children are not harmed by sexual contact with adults. That does not mean that I am going to automatically condone sex with children. There are still the feelings of the parents, the feelings of the children (even if they are not harmed); moreover, my ethics may not be purely utilitarian-based -- there may be other factors that are influencial, perhaps even notions of traditional morality. All science would have shown, in this case, is that sex with children does not harm children -- it does not determine how I am going to act, nor does it determine how I am going to feel about the idea (although I would, of course, be relieved that the "victims" of pedophilia are not going to irreparably harmed by the experience). Of course, if it turned out that my feelings against pedophilia were based largely on the fear that children were harmed by the experience, then finding out that there would be no harm would force me to rethink my position. But again, it is not science determining what I feel to be moral or immoral -- that is determined by my chosen utilitarian standards. All science has done in this case is to show me that the reasoning by which I condemned pedophilia is based on incorrect facts. I don't know if this helps. Does this touch on the points you were trying to make? "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Can I pretend that I'm different from the religious right if I honestly don't care if 13 year olds have sex with adults? "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Actually, I'm an anarchist -- I don't know whether that counts as "libertarian tendencies" or not. But your point is taken.
"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Actually, I do agree with a lot of what you say here. Of course, an argument like this is going to degenerate into what people mean by "morality" or "trying to legislate morality". Basically, except for a few cases where a despot is openly ruling for his own benefit, all laws are the codification of some sort of morality. Even laws that are supposedly for the "general welfare" implicitly assume that it is a moral duty to promote the general welfare. People usually decide that they are for or against some law based largely on what they consider moral, either by considering the direct effects of the law, or by thinking about the long term ramifications and unintended consequences of the particular piece of legislation. People may not use "moral language" to describe their opinions, but at some point it comes down to the person thinking that some sort of goal is "good" or "bad".
However, when most people speak against "legislating morality", what they are usually referring to is constraining behavior that has no direct effect on the individuals promoting the legislation; the difference between "public morality" and "private morality", so to speak. Just to get an idea of where you stand on this, consider the people who are believe that interracial sex and interracial marriage are immoral. Do you believe that they have the, er, moral right to legislate their morality? Would you have any objections to the principle that if they were either to take control of the state, or if they were to convince a majority of the voters that they are correct, they could put their moral beliefs into legal practice? "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Ask randman. But if I'm interpreting his response correctly, then he would reply that even if I don't care whether 12 year old have sex with adults, there are other laws I would support based on my morality; so, to answer your question, no, I still could not pretend that I am different from the religious right. This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 21-Nov-2005 06:40 PM "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: I guess that would be true, for those who are into that sort of thing. "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Hmm. That would allow Christian parents to raise their kids as they wish. Not that this would help. Christians already have the option not to be gay, but that doesn't prevent them from wanting to interfere with other people's lives. "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Well, I disagree with the wording; I think that it is obvious that many (if not most) do not want to codify their moral sense into law; for example, there are many things, some significant, that I think are immoral but I would not want to put into law, and I am sure most other people are similar. Do we still disagree, then?
On the other hand, if you meant that everyone's feelings for what should or should not be codified into law are based to some degree on their ideas of ethics and morality, then I will agree with this. In the latter case, then my point is that maybe we also agree that not every attempt to base legislation on moral beliefs are the same; some are acceptable and some are not acceptable. So I am wondering whether there is some common ground where we can agree that some morality-based law is acceptable and some unacceptable. By the way, by "unacceptable" I do not mean to imply that I would support the restriction of anyone to influence the legislation process, just to be clear. Perhaps I could have come up with a better word, but I have been having trouble coming up with appropriate words the last few days. "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024