Why, just because you say so? While the idea has been continued by many since, I direct you to read Beyond Good & Evil. That book is based on the premise that a morality should be life affirming, and it's seen as a philosophical classic. But oh, I guess it is simply silly and does not withstand the slightest scrutiny.
The ten solitudes of Toronto dating
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
Which does not prove or even suggest that because something is "ordinary" it is life affirming.Why, just because you say so? While the idea has been continued by many since, I direct you to read Beyond Good & Evil. That book is based on the premise that a morality should be life affirming, and it's seen as a philosophical classic. But oh, I guess it is simply silly and does not withstand the slightest scrutiny.
Racism, violence, slavery, homophobia...have all been ordinary.
No, not in Beyond Good & Evil, but if you follow the thread a little further and read Women in Love, which plainly took Beyond Good & Evil as a starting point, you'll find an exploration of the relationship between the human will, healthy human desires, sexual behavior, and morality that is getting pretty damn close. Perhaps we just live in a more democratic age, and in this era I would want to describe what most people do, most of the time as healthy. In any case, I see no reason to describe it as deviant.Which does not prove or even suggest that because something is "ordinary" it is life affirming.
You orginally suggested cheating was "life affirming" because it had some evolutionary value. You have since wisely abandoned that claim. We now seem to agree that just because something is ordinary does not make it life affirming.No, not in Beyond Good & Evil, but if you follow the thread a little further and read Women in Love, which plainly took Beyond Good & Evil as a starting point, you'll find an exploration of the relationship between the human will, healthy human desires, sexual behavior, and morality that is getting pretty damn close. Perhaps we just live in a more democratic age, and in this era I would want to describe what most people do, most of the time as healthy. In any case, I see no reason to describe it as deviant.
You have failed to offer any reason why cheating is "life affirming", other than that is something you enjoy and it is ordinary, neither of which offers any value.
By the by, I have read beyond good and evil, but have not read Women in Love. Perhaps I will when you read The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, but Gould.
Yes. On a different thread. I still believe that as an explanation for why we have the desires that we do.You orginally suggested cheating was "life affirming" because it had some evolutionary value.
Nope, just haven't needed to advance it on this thread.You have since wisely abandoned that claim.
Yes, but be careful. There are TWO related claims here:We now seem to agree that just because something is ordinary does not make it life affirming.
1. It's wrong to prescribe against cheating because that would be life denying
2. Cheating is good because it is life affirming
The argument about ordinary is with respect to point #1. Its ordinariness is put forward as some evidence that cheating is a very normal/healthy human activity, and that therefore prescribing against it is life denying.
There are of course assumptions there: It's ordinariness doesn't prove that it's inherently normal/healthy behavior, but it's just some strong evidence that it is. You could counter-claim that our society, that makes it ordinary, is a horribly corrupt and immoral society. I think Al Qaeda makes that claim, if you want to put yourself into their company. There are also people who do precisely claim that a life denying morality is a good morality, these people say things like "we love death more than you love life", and view post Garden of Eden life to be undesirable, horrible, and morally deniable. If you want to choose to put yourself into the Al Qaeda western-society-is-evil camp, or into the theological the-whole-world-is-inherently-evil camp then we will just agree to disagree. I choose a practical, pragmatic, real-world approach: I choose life.
(If you choose the Al Qaeda claim we can continue the debate by looking at whether non-Western societies also have similar prevalence of adultery, though.)
If point #1 carries then there is nothing wrong with cheating, which is only half-way there. It's in point #2 that I move even further and argue that it's a good, life affirming thing.
We haven't discussed point #2 much, because everyone has been focussed on point #1.You have failed to offer any reason why cheating is "life affirming"
Cheating is life affirming because it connects a healthy human desire with action. Thus it is life affirming in the sense that eating when you are hungry is life affirming. Maybe we'll get into the evolutionary argument here--people, at least man (and probably women) desire as many sexual partners as they can have, cheating actualizes that, affirming a core value. In the context of there being nothing wrong with it (from point #1) that would make it a good thing.
Surely you should seek to have these proposals brought before your Corporation's annual shareholders meeting since you find them so "life affirming" certainly the senior management must agree with such especially since you imply that half of society whole heartedly agrees with you.1. It's wrong to prescribe against cheating because that would be life denying
2. Cheating is good because it is life affirming.
Do you also think I should bring up my opposition to torture and the show trials at Gitmo? What makes you think the annual shareholder's meeting is an appropriate venue for either issue?Surely you should seek to have these proposals brought before your Corporation's annual shareholders meeting since you find them so "life affirming" certainly the senior management must agree with such especially since you imply that half of society whole heartedly agrees with you.
And you feel that opposition to torture would have the same support as would 1. It's wrong to prescribe against cheating because that would be life denying 2. Cheating is good because it is life affirming?Do you also think I should bring up my opposition to torture and the show trials at Gitmo? What makes you think the annual shareholder's meeting is an appropriate venue for either issue?
Kant’s deontological ethics says, “An action is moral when it is done out of duty, rather than consequences.” In a test your duty is to answer the questions with whatever you have learned, and the purpose is to show how much knowledge you have gained, without cheating. When someone cheats his action is not done out of his duty. The action is directed towards the consequences, which might be the fear of failing, afraid of being embarrassed, or it might also be to gain benefit easily without putting much effort on studying.
If the intention of the individual performing the action is good then the action can be said to be good. The good intention is good without any qualification, according to Kant. The intention to cheat is not simply morally good. Someone cheats because of an exterior motive which might be the fear or the expectation of gain. “Duty is the necessity of action to be done out of respect for the law.” Cheating is against the law of the school that says not to cheat in tests.
Kant’s categorical imperative states that “you should act only according to the maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Would everyone follow your action of cheating in test? If everyone cheated there will be no point in cheating. Grades will have no meaning if everyone cheats. You’re cheating in order to gain some kind of unfair advantage over other test-takers, who are not cheating. If everyone cheats, then cheating wouldn’t be unfair and you won’t even get any advantage. There would be no such thing as cheating. You would not therefore want everyone else to cheat and cheating can’t be a universal law.
Cheating is not an action done out of duty with good intention respecting the law, and it can’t be a universal law. Therefore, cheating is not rational and is not morally right as of Kant’s deontological ethics.
If the intention of the individual performing the action is good then the action can be said to be good. The good intention is good without any qualification, according to Kant. The intention to cheat is not simply morally good. Someone cheats because of an exterior motive which might be the fear or the expectation of gain. “Duty is the necessity of action to be done out of respect for the law.” Cheating is against the law of the school that says not to cheat in tests.
Kant’s categorical imperative states that “you should act only according to the maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Would everyone follow your action of cheating in test? If everyone cheated there will be no point in cheating. Grades will have no meaning if everyone cheats. You’re cheating in order to gain some kind of unfair advantage over other test-takers, who are not cheating. If everyone cheats, then cheating wouldn’t be unfair and you won’t even get any advantage. There would be no such thing as cheating. You would not therefore want everyone else to cheat and cheating can’t be a universal law.
Cheating is not an action done out of duty with good intention respecting the law, and it can’t be a universal law. Therefore, cheating is not rational and is not morally right as of Kant’s deontological ethics.
PURE pedantry. You are a fool.Although Fuji calls for the difference between actions (empirically observed...) and what we say about them (meanings) to be observed, ultimately he falls victim to behaviorist errors. For the behaviourist, all that matters is the moving of the parts, the actions visible to the eye, so that the meanings we give to our actions is of no consequence to understanding who we are. Behaviorists talk of differences between actions and meanings, but typically collapse meanings not actions in efforts to draw lessons about behavior. Let's watch this unfold.
Nope. I never implied that. I don't believe it. It's not what I mean.Few have an issue with cheating, he implies, because they cheat.
Once again you demonstrate your mental inability to comprehend the point.
The rest of your reply is broken because you failed to comprehend this point.
...lots of nice things that may apply in other areas of life. My claim is fundamentally that sexual relationships are so complex that they cannot be analyzed rationally, and therefore rational machinery, such as Kant would bring to bear, fails to be relevant. Any attempt to apply it implies that you believe you can effectively analyze a particular sexual relationship, but you can't.Kant’s deontological ethics says...
This is the essence of why I think moral principles cannot be brought to bear on sexual behavior, unless those principles are SO universal that no analysis of the sexual behavior itself is required. For example, we universally reject violence, there is no nuance that could ever make violence in a sexual concept appropriate. On the other hand, whether a lie is moral or immoral generally does depend a great deal on nuance.
so you are saying that you kant apply rational thought to your relationships....lots of nice things that may apply in other areas of life. My claim is fundamentally that sexual relationships are so complex that they cannot be analyzed rationally, and therefore rational machinery, such as Kant would bring to bear, fails to be relevant. Any attempt to apply it implies that you believe you can effectively analyze a particular sexual relationship, but you can't.
This is the essence of why I think moral principles cannot be brought to bear on sexual behavior, unless those principles are SO universal that no analysis of the sexual behavior itself is required. For example, we universally reject violence, there is no nuance that could ever make violence in a sexual concept appropriate. On the other hand, whether a lie is moral or immoral generally does depend a great deal on nuance.
Deceit is deceit. It makes no difference if you lie in a business dealing or in an attempt to get laid; a lie is a lie. When the lie hurts another, that's even more serious. Claiming that sex is to complicated to apply a moral compass is a cop-out and an evasion.think moral principles cannot be brought to bear on sexual behavior, unless those principles are SO universal that no analysis of the sexual behavior itself is required.
You need to realize that lying for personal gain is not something people with strong moral character do. Then you'll see where you fit in the moral spectrum.
Now you've lost the debate so badly you're cutting and pasting ad hominems from one thread to another.This is by no means a last word, but what I said in another thread succinctly captures what I really think about all of this. Apologies for repeated post:
You have lost.
Do you have any reasons to believe this is true?Deceit is deceit. It makes no difference if you lie in a business dealing or in an attempt to get laid; a lie is a lie.
Unless, of course, it IS too complicated. Do you have any reason to believe that it isn't?Claiming that sex is to complicated to apply a moral compass is a cop-out and an evasion.
yes. logic has helped me. as an exampleSexual relationships, yes. Have you generally found that logical analysis worked for you there?
I like to fuck women with big tits.
Sarah has big tits
therefore I like to fuck sarah.
Even if Sarah is 400 pound and 90 years old, and a sheep?yes. logic has helped me. as an example
I like to fuck women with big tits.
Sarah has big tits
therefore I like to fuck sarah.
lmao.even if sarah is 400 pound and 90 years old, and a sheep?
