Bigots Target
Gary Phillips
:: Correction: far from "quoting someone as Kant", I quote good old
:: Kant himself, from _The Metaphysics of Morals_, _The Doctrine of
:: Virtue_, Part I, Chapter I -- "Man's Duty to Himself as an Animal
:: Being". As regards "the entire point of what he taught us", it
:: readily yields an a priori argument to the effect that any attempt
:: at a moral apology of homosexual (or otherwise essentially sterile
:: and reproductively counterpurposive) acts must constitute irrational
:: aesthetization of morality, in so far as it is bound to rest on the
:: specious arrogation of a unique moral privilege to a class of people
:: distinguished by their peculiar inclinations. No claim to special
:: entitlement could be more inimical to the spirit of autonomous moral
:: legislation; and hence it comes as no surprise to see Kant argue
:: that "unnatural lust, which is complete abandonment of oneself to
:: animal inclination, makes man not only an object of enjoyment but,
:: still further, a thing that is contrary to nature, that is, a
:: _loathsome_ object, and so deprives him of all respect to himself."
: I fail, Mikhail, to see how this spurting proves anything at all. He cites
: no evidence, gives no examples, refers to no-one else; he merely is sitting
: at his desk intellectually masturbating about what he thinks is right. By
: reKanting his words you prove not a goddamn thing.
> Perhaps you ought to take the trouble to think about it. If morality is
> a universal constraint on permissible action of free rational agents,
Well, that's an interesting enough question all by itself, isn't it?
And not one to which moral philosophers necessarily have to agree upon the
answer. Even if morality is taken as a universal constraint upon
permissible action, the content of what those restraints restrain is a
subject with which Kantian ethics is ill-equipped to deal. Using another
example from Frankena, "one can adopt the maxim that one will never help
those in need and will this to be a universal law." Admittedly, one may
find himself in the inconsistent position of having to will the abrogation
of this maxim. "Still, it is not hard to imagine a man whose fortune is
fairly sure or one who is willing to be consistent and to take the
consquences of his maxim's being universally acted on; if there are such
people, Kant's test [the categorical imperative] will not suffice to
establish benevolence as a duty. Of course, one might conclude that it is
not a duty just because it does not pass this test; but this seems a rather
drastic conclusion, and deontological as he was, even Kant could not draw
it."
> any
> proposed course of action that directly contravenes the conditions of
> your freedom, rationality, or agency, cannot be morally acceptable. So
> Kant tells you that, since you owe your very provenance as an agent to a
> single fertile act of sexual intercourse, any necessarily infertile form
> of sexual intercourse cannot be willed to be an instance of a lawlike
> choice, in so far as its instantiation at the moment of your conception
> would have preempted your biological existence as a necessary condition
> of your current moral deliberation.
And although such a blanket type of rule which overlooks, as it
does, a universe of subtlety can easily be conditioned so that the false
dilemma you pose is no further threat to the conditions of one's moral
agency, freedom, and rationality.
When I was young and would do something that my mom didn't like, she
would sometimes say, "What if everyone acted like that?" as if this
thought ought to give one pause. Of course, it need not give one pause at
all, since the obvious retort is that not everyone ever has nor currently
does act in any one way. I believe it is safe to assume that we can rely on
the variety, multiplicity, inventiveness and sheer bull-headedness of
ordinary human beings everywhere to ensure that "everyone" never will.
Heck, we can't even agree on the foundations of moral philosophy.
What good reason is there to imagine that everyone would act the same way,
no matter how strongly one *wished* it?
--
Gary Phillips
orp...@kaiwan.com
Laguna Beach, CA
Michael Zeleny
orp...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Gary Phillips) writes:
::::: The worst that one could fairly say about gay sexual acts from a Kantian
::::: perspective is that they are non-moral (as opposed to amoral, immoral, or
::::: explicitly moral). For one can formulate a proposition such that one can
::::: will that everyone should engage in non-exclusive homosexual sexual
::::: activity without self-contradiction.
:::: This is silly. Any act is intrinsically exclusive of its alternatives.
::: I am speaking of a sexual pattern in which homosexual acts
::: are not practiced exclusively, but individuals engage sometimes in
::: homosexual acts and at other times, heterosexual ones. Or, better
::: yet, individuals engage in homosexual acts for pleasure and emotional
::: fulfillment and heterosexual acts only for the purpose of propogation.
:: You might as well try speaking of an economic pattern in which stealing
:: is not practiced exclusively, but light-fingered individuals engage
:: sometimes in unauthorized acquisition of goods and at other times,
:: magnanimously remunerate the current owners for their property. Or,
:: better yet, individuals engage in theft for pleasure and emotional
:: fulfillment and honest toil only for the purpose of community service.
: Sex is not stealing unless it is rape. and in that case, it is not sex.
: Thus, the two activities (sex and stealing) are completely different in
: their essential nature, and no valid comparison between them is possible.
The issue of consent is irrelevant to the analogy. Theft violates the
Categorical Imperative because it is self-contradictory, not because
it is coercive: the thief seeks to appropriate the goods by abrogating
the bonds of ownership. Other forms of coercive appropriation (such
as taxation and other tools of distributive justice) can pass the Law
of Nature test by dint of functioning within the bounds of a general
doctrine of Right. On the other hand, numerous illicit actions cannot
gain legitimacy through consent. In this category, murder and buggery
are on par.
: Simply put, the problem with your argument is that you conflate two
: separate moral issues: that of propagation and that of sexual interaction.
: The issue of propagation becomes a moral issue in sexual ethics only
: insofar as conception is possible in the course of any particular sexual
: interaction. Regarding sexual interactions outside that limited
: framework, your maxim says nothing constructive (nor even merely
: informative) whatsoever. To say that propagation is the sole justification
: for sexual activity is as logically short-sighted and morally obsolete and
: incomplete as it is outdated and practially untenable.
That is not at all what is being said. Kant does not posit a need for
justifying any activity in general, and sexual activity in particular.
Rather, his point is that in so far as generative powers inhere in the
sexual act, any sexual act that excludes generation of necessity,
cannot constitute an instance of a universal law.
::: I shall will that every human being propagate at least once
::: during his or her lifetime, in order to ensure the survival of the species
::: and leave him to pursue whatever ends he may in the rest of his sexual
::: activities in his lifetime.
:: This willing has nothing to do with the maxim of any given action.
: Nonsense. The maxim is clearly stated. It is that which I have
: willed, as stated above. If you fail to recognize it as a maxim, it can
: only be because of your aforementioned conflation of the issues of
: propagation and sexual interaction.
It is possible to recognize a functional connection between two types
of action, whilst maintaining the relevant type distinctions. As
regards your clear statement, it is not a maxim but a mantra. To
recognize the legitimacy of subsuming extenuating intentions into the
maxim of one's action is tantamount to gainsaying the application of
the Categorical Imperative. Any course of action whatsoever can be
promoted to the status of an instance of a universal law of nature,
given sufficient laxity with explicitly stipulated exceptions, and
sufficient blindness to the logical form of universal laws.
: The only thing I would add is that I presume that
: the "ends ... in the rest of [a man's (or woman's)] sexual activity" to be
: not immoral, but either moral or non-moral, and failed to make this
: explicit. In any case the evaluation of their moral standing is a separate
: issue from that of the moral obligation of propagation.
Your presumptions are of no interest to the other parties in this
conversation. If you wish to demonstrate that the condemnation of
homosexuality by Plato and Aristotle, or Aquinas and Kant, is bereft
of any rational basis, by all means do so by exposing the factual
falsehoods and logical contradictions in their arguments. If you want
to argue from the first principles that homosexuality is blameless or
praiseworthy, go right ahead. Beyond that, I have no interest in your
thoughts, your inclinations, your agenda, or your personality. Save
the weepy bits for your analyst.
::: This makes sense because, according to you, the only morally
::: valid rationale for engaging in heterosexual acts appears to be the end
::: of propogating the species. Clearly, homosexual sexual acts cannot
::: have this end, but once the moral obligation of propogation is satisfied,
::: there would appear to be no particularly compelling reason ever to
::: engage in heterosexual sex again. In fact, to continue to do so clearly
::: harbors the potential threat of accelerating the overpopulation of the
::: planet; and to overpopulate the planet is as counter-purposive as not
::: populating it at all.
:: I already explained the difference between distal consequences and
:: proximate aspects of acting. I will not bother to say things twice.
: There would be no point in repeating yourself, at any rate, since
: what you've had to say so far has just been debunked.
What I have had to say so far is fairly standard in published
discussions of the Categorical Imperative. Far from threatening the
interpretive status quo, you have managed no more than a hackneyed
illustration of a well-known travesty of moral thought. Rabelais did
that much earlier and infinitely better, with his famous tale of the
city of happy debtors -- just tell yourself that your promise incurs
no literal obligation, and promise away all you want. This is the
moral equivalent of crossing your fingers to exculpate yourself in
course of telling a lie. Perhaps the morally different ought to try
the same tack to absolve themselves from perversion whilst cornholing
their catamites.
: From what you have stated in our correspondence, your maxim can
: only be that every human being has the moral obligation to reproduce, which
: is fine, as far as it goes. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with the
: morality of any sexual act that any individual may take part outside the
: narrow parameters within which propagation is possible. The abject
: inadequacy and irrelevancy of your maxim to the remainder of human
: sexual activity is appalling.
: Nevertheless, I have taken your proposed maxim and shown its
: absurdity by carrying it out to its logical end: reductio ad absurdam
: (above, below and previously, taken together).
This is dreadfully confused. Maxims make no reference, either
explicitly or implicitly, to any moral obligation. The purpose of
submitting your maxim to the test of the formula of the law of nature
is not to reaffirm the pre-established tenets of morality, but to
discover the inherent moral merit of a proposed course of action,
formulated independently of any conception of duty or value.
::: You object that the threat of overpopulation is "at best a
::: distal consequence," but this can only be true if everyone on the
::: planet who *can* reproduce does not, in fact, do so. You assume
::: the current state of affairs, rather than the necessary consequence
::: of your moral legislation, as you have stated it.
:: Kant is not a consequentialist. Neither am I.
: The argument above does not depend on consequentialism any more
: than Kant's argument against the universalization of lying does. The
: argument is not that the consequence of universal propagation would be
: bad (although, in fact, I believe it would be), but rather that in willing
: universally that every sexual act be aimed at propagation (for the purpose
: of ensuring the survival of the species, since this is what you claim to be
: the sole justification of any sexual act) one is involved in a contradiction
: of will. One would be willing both that it be possible to reproduce
: indiscriminately and indefinitely and that the species be able to survive
: at the same time. But this is inherently self-defeating and thus logically
: self-contradictory since, if that maxim were in fact universally acted on,
: the results of over-population would inevitably destroy the possibility of
: the survival of the species. Reductio ad absurdam.
Sorry, no dice. Most animals give the lie to your contention by
propagating indiscriminately and universally. There is no logical
contradiction or physical incompatibility in willing that every act of
sexual intercourse be potentially fertile. The point of the CI test
is not to measure the possible consequences of one's action against
the survival of the species, or any other particular goal, but to
construe the conditions of willing it consistently within an instance
of a universal law. Final causes will never enter into deontological
consideration as such, any more than they enter into the formulation
of the laws of physics; however the maxim must subsume the agent's
representation of his proximate ends, to the extent that they may be
relevant to the determination of the type of his action. To take an
extreme example, though I may be operating under a delusion of being a
man of steel, my maxim of aiming a gun at my breast in order to test
the extraordinary resilience of my skin is a maxim of suicide, my lack
of awareness thereof notwithstanding; for the facts of the matter take
precedence over figments of the imagination.
: In addition to your argument being intrinsically absurd (logically)
: and beside the fact that you have unjustifiably conflated the issues of
: propagation and sexuality beyond merit, your argument makes several
: unwarranted practical assumptions and smacks of misogyny upon
: further analysis.
: You really have to pull the wool over everyone's eyes here, including
: your own, by stating that you are not a consequentialist in this matter.
: The reality is that you can't *afford* to be a consequentialist because,
: when taken on consequentialist grounds, your argument falls apart even
: more quickly than it does on logical grounds alone, and you know this.
: The world is a limited space with limited resources within which we are
: irremediably bound. How "rational" and "responsible" is it to presume
: unlimited space and resources when formulating your propagational sexual
: ethic? The impracticality of your argument actually highlights and informs
: its logical absurdity. So long as you refuse to consider the consequences,
: you can pretend that you are being moral. But what good is a morality
: that is inherently incapable of being applied in the real world? How
: "logical" is it? I'll answer for you: It is, in a word, vacuous, both in
: terms of its "good" and in terms of its logic.
Look out, folks -- here comes the hoary cliche' of buggery as Higher
Malthusianism! Never mind that the position I had expounded contains
nothing that would mandate indiscriminate reproduction, or prohibit
responsible contraception. Kindly consider applying your
sanctimonious invocations of "the real world" at home -- it is hardly
necessary to turn your erotic energies towards the barren ground of
your own gender, in order to alleviate your concern about the putative
insufficiency of scarce resources for the care and feeding of the
future generations.
: Moreover, who is going to raise and care for all these children you
: say are necessary to ensure the survival of the species? Who has the
: responsibility of raising them to be morally competent citizens? Is there
: an obligation to be a loving parent? In the words of Annette Baier, "Such
: evidence as we have about the conditions in which children do successfully
: 'learn' the morality of the community of which they are members suggests
: that we cannot substitute 'conscientiously' for 'lovingly' in this
: hypothetically extra needed obligation [to rear one's children lovingly]."
: In her words again, you "have to take a loan out not only on the natural
: duty of parents to care for children ... but on the natural *virtue* of
: parental love ... [and/or the maternal instinct]."
: Not only are you forced to presume a system of moral training
: adequate to the task of inculcating moral values in all of these children
: you want to bring into the world (in order to ensure the stability of your
: morality over several generations), you are forced to reduce women to
: the status of mere "baby factories." You presume that women will have
: no qualms owning up to their "duty" to have all these children you want
: to bring into the world with every sexual act that henceforth takes place.
Straw man. There is a lot of room between practicing a necessarily
sterile -- because of the intrinsic biological nature of one's chosen
partner -- form of sexual intercourse, and willing that each sex act
result in conception. Consider that you could owe your provenance to
a failure of contraception in a heterosexual encounter, whereas it is
biologically impossible for you to have emerged as the issue of any
homosexual act.
: Your proposition is not "moral," Zeleny. In addition to being
: illogical and pragmatically untenable, it is profligate and dissolute.
: It cannot even meet it's own standard of morality.
If you say it three times, it must be true.
:::: And the contradiction implicit in the homosexual act is fundamental,
:::: involving as it does two parties owing their provenance to heterosexual
:::: acts. ... Overpopulation is at best a distal consequence, ipso facto
:::: irrelevant for deontological assessment, whereas the contradiction
:::: of intrinsic sterility arises directly from the proximate goals of the
:::: act -- to engage in sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex --
:::: which are indispensable for individuating it as a volitional occurrence.
:::: So the two aspects are not comparable.
::: Perhaps, if we limit ourselves to the consideration of a single
::: sex act per life of an individual. But this involves a "desert island"
::: fallacy. It is inapplicable to the real world.
:: The central question of deontological morality is whether or not a
:: given course of action conforms to duty. To pretend that one can
:: arbitrarily extend the scope of the action in question over an entire
:: lifetime, not only vitiates the main premiss -- that any given choice
:: is either right or wrong --
: I am not a deontologist. To pretend that one can make valid
: moral distinctions absent any consideration of the real world is
: patently absurd: it ignores the basis of the necessity for moral
: values at all - that people have to live together and live with themselves
: at the same time in a circumscribed world with limited resources in
: which each has an earnest and inherent interest that extends not only
: over their lifetime, but over that of future generations as well. To ignore
: this basis of necessity for making moral distinctions is to vitiate the
: relevancy of one's moral hypothecation altogether.
Big words, little content. The real world is the place where every
man owes his existence to a heterosexual act. I have explained at
length the ways in which homosexual acts fail to take account of this
fact. In return, you give me vague handwaving about the salutary
effect of buggery on the suffering multitudes, and discombobulated
apophthegms of ladylike morality bearing little or no relevance to the
crux of the matter. Deontology is the morality of duty; nothing in
the general formulation of the deontological approach, or in its
particular deployment in Kantian moral philosophy, can rule out due
consideration of the physical arena and factual constraints of one's
action.
: Moreover, to presume that reason can be the sole basis of morality
: ignores the fact that the decision to be rational is itself not a rational
: decision. The decision to approach the world rationally is pre-rational.
: Moral claims are inextricably intertwined with the attachments of human
: passion. For instance, claims of justice are based on our passionate
: attachment to our life, limbs, and property; claims to property are based
: on our passionate attachment to the fruit of our labor, and claims to the
: fruit of our labor are, in turn, based upon the passionate attachment
: and distincitive relation that we hold to our body-selves.
: Thus, any account of morality which does not take cognizance of
: the reality of this human condition, cannot expect to have persuasive,
: much less binding, moral force.
To translate into level-headed vernacular: our "passionate attachment"
to the orifices of our own gender exempts us from the natural duty to
deal with the icky parts of the opposite gender. By the same kind of
reasoning, a passion for gratuitous killing would exempt us from the
need to respect life, and a passion for rapacious acquisition would
exempt us from the need to respect property rights.
:: ... To pretend that one can arbitrarily extend the scope of the action
:: in question over an entire lifetime ... arrogates to the agent the
:: impossible faculty of instantaneous control over his life plans.
: Not at all. It is simply a recognition of the fact that not every
: act is of moral importance. Your argument rests on a fallacy, to
: wit: if the world was decimated but for one island and there were
: only three people left on that island, at least one of whom was able
: to have children, and there was only one sexual act available to
: them in their lifetime, what would be the right thing for them to do?
: As Anthony Flew once put it, the assertion that your maxim has
: any relevant application to the real worl has "died by a thousand
: distinctions." It is called the "desert island" fallacy and you have,
: of necessity, based your entire argument upon it.
Your persistent name-dropping fails to address the point. Your
intention to do something else at another time and place bears no
relevance to the merit of your action here and now -- until and unless
you persuade Anthony Flew to sell you some philosophical indulgences
to compensate the depravity of today with the probity of tomorrow.
:: We do
:: not say that a single murder is extenuated by an intention to impregnate
:: an entire chorus line, so as to maintain the population growth in its
:: aftermath; nor can we maintain that a single act of buggery can be
:: compensated for by similar means.
: "Buggery," as you call it, necessitates no compensation since
: nothing is wrongfully taken, whereas in the cases of murder and theft
: something is wrongfully taken. Your argument thus fails to make its
: point.
You are begging the question of moral worth with your distinction of
wrongful taking. Buggery is similar to murder, in so far as both
vitiate and contravene the natural means of continuation of life. And
the subject of compensation was first introduced by your scenario of
optional heterosexuality practiced for the sake of reproduction, so as
to permit habitual homosexuality practiced for the sake of enjoyment.
: In continuing to consider your maxim, it is interesting to not that
: there are now plenty of sperm banks in the world. It would seem that these
: days, there is no necessity for heterosexual intercourse at all. I should
: think that would make *you* a very happy man. ;-) After all, artificial
: insemination is such a clinical and antiseptic process -- very clean, very
: tidy. Much like the self-contained (albeit delusory) world of the rational
: absolutist. Just think of all the messy, dirty, sweaty, smelly "problems"
: we are now able to *avoid* all because of those millions of frozen little
: test tubes. Titillating, isn't it? No sex: no problem, right?
: Now that the sole moral justification for heterosexual sex has been
: obviated by technology, by your reasoning we ought to will that no one
: have sex at all. We can simply conscript all women as receptacles for
: the world's sperm banks. Given an adequate pre-screening process for
: sperm donors, we can eliminate sexually and hereditarily transmitted
: diseases. We avoid domestic disputes regarding "whose baby it is," since
: only the state need know (for genetic and disease tracking purposes).
: And once a receptacle has recovered from delivery, it can be reprocessed
: so that the survival of the species need never be in doubt. This is
: better for all concerned. Don't you agree?
: Sex is now morally obsolete. I'm sure the world will be thrilled to
: hear it.
Sorry to disturb your utopian vistas of immaculate conception, but
anyone who owes *his* existence to the natural means of reproduction,
would run into a contradiction of will in the practice of sexuality
that depends on artificial means of conception for the continuation of
his species.
::: The fact is that the vast majority of people engage in far more
::: than one sexual act, have more than one sexual partner, and at least 15%
::: of all people have one or more partners of each sex during their
::: lifetimes. The numbers may vary, depending upon which surveys you wish to
::: cite, but the fact that human sexual activity is extensive and varied is
::: as unquestionable as is the fact that most of us have a lifetime in which
::: to engage in it.
:: In other words, your behavior is justified because it is not uncommon.
: No. It is justified because of the distinctive relation I hold to my
: body and the necessity of freedom and bodily integrity to moral agency.
: I posted to you extensively on this topic under another thread (Homosexual
: Rights = Special Rights?) in this conference (talk.philosophy.misc).
The distinctive relation you hold to your body and the necessity of
freedom and bodily integrity to moral agency fail to license buggery,
in the same way they fail to license gratuitous self-mutilation. The
rest is commentary.
: The point above was that your failure to take cognizance of factors
: relevant to considerations of sexual ethics rendered your maxim and
: your criticism irrelevant, at best.
At issue is a single given act. The question is whether it is right
or wrong. Just as present credit cannot be given for recounting the
splendid moral accomplishments of your past, it cannot be given for
issuing grandiose promises of future feats.
::: Of course, what people actually do is not necessarily what they
::: actually *should* do, but if our moral legislation is to have any
::: applicability to the real world, it must at least take some responsible
::: account of the real world.
:: The real world is a place where every member of a dioecious species
:: owes the fact of his existence to heterosexual contact. Consider
:: taking some responsible account of that fact.
: I already have, both in my personal philosophy and in the maxim
: which I formulated above for the purposes of this discussion. You
: continue to conflate acts of propagation and acts of sex per se, without
: warrant.
See above.
::: Moreover, Kant doesn't assume that the inherent self-contradiction
::: in the will to universalize lying rests in a single instance of lying. He
::: assumes that if lying were the moral law, everyone would do it all of the
::: time. One of the weaknesses of his method lies in the fact that in
::: formulating imperatives we can condition them in ways that make allowances
::: for exceptions to what would otherwise be an overstated rule. Take the
::: issue of lying, for instance, (quoting William Frankena, 'Ethics',
::: Prentice-Hall, 1973, p. 32):
:::
::: "It must also be pointed out that [Kant] is not free from
::: the difficulties due to conflicts between duties; it seems
::: possible, at any rate, that keeping a promise might on
::: occasion prevent one from helping someone in trouble.
::: Possibly Kant could argue in this case that it would be
::: right to break the promise and help the person in trouble,
::: since one can will the maxim, "When breaking a promise
::: is required in order to help someone I will break it," to be
::: universally acted on in the situations specified, especially
::: if it is also specified in the maxim that the promise is not
::: crucially important and that the help is. Kant, however,
::: does not take this line, and talks as if he can show that
::: promises ought never to be broken. But this his argument
::: does not suffice to show. As was just indicated, one may
::: be able to will a specific rule that permits promises to be
::: broken in a certain kind of situation to be universally acted
::: on, even though one cannot will a more blanket one to
::: become a universal law."
:: I would have expected Frankena to know that helping someone in
:: trouble, unlike not harming him and keeping a promise, does not
:: constitute a perfect duty to others.
: So much for your expectations. They really have nothing to do with the
: argument, however. The fact is that Frankena is correct and you are wrong.
: One cannot will that individual propagagation for the purpose of ensuring
: the survival of the species become a universal law without inherent self-
: contradiction of the will any more than one can consistently will that
: homosexual sex be universalized on a permanent basis. This is not to say
: that either sexual act is immoral, but it is saying that the realm of
: sexual ethics and of propagation is of greater subtlety and complexity
: than that for which your maxim can either allow or account.
You have asseverated so on numerous occasions, without adducing any
rational justification in support of your claims. Consider another
refutation of your theses -- since it is not logically necessary that
the biosphere must remain spatially bounded as its inhabitants
continue to increase in number, there can be no a priori limitation on
the accomodations and resources available for the future generations.
For that matter, we know of no insurmountable physical, biological, or
social obstacles to their limitless growth. Overpopulation may lead
to extinction, but it may equally well force a transition of the
species to more hospitable grounds capable of sustaining its growth.
::: The scenario I formulated in the beginning of this message is
::: another example of conditioning the imperative to allow for exceptions and
::: for the resolution of conflicting duties.
:: The scenario you formulated is nothing more than an attempt to
:: contrive an exception to the general rule in order to accomodate
:: your peculiar inclinations.
: So you say. Aside from the fact that your expectations regarding
: the applicability and sufficiency of Kant's ethical philosophy have
: apparently been dashed by Frankena, whom I have followed in
: constructing the scenario mentioned above, you seem to have little
: of relevance to say regarding the maxim I have proposed, and even less
: such to say in defense of your own proposition.
I have said enough to answer your objections. Consider the
possibility that your resistance is grounded not in any shortcoming of
my response, but in a failure of your understanding. As regards the
Kant-Frankena controversy, I am perfectly happy to align my compass
with the light of a distant star, instead of orienting myself by the
corner streetlight.
cordially, don't
mikhail zel...@math.ucla.edu tread
writing from the disneyland of formal philosophy on
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes." me
Gary Phillips
: The exact lines of Zeleny's quoted material:
:
: "unnatural lust, which is complete abandonment of oneself to
: animal inclination, makes man not only an object of enjoyment but,
: still further, a thing that is contrary to nature, that is, a
: _loathsome_ object, and so deprives him of all respect to himself."
:
: I notice that Zeleny ripped this from context. On the face of it,
: it would appear to be referring to lust divorced from control by
: reason and an higher ethical standard than mere animal inclination.
That is precisely what it does mean.
: Zeleny contends that this "unnatural lust" was meant to refer to
: reproductively sterile sex, such as homosexual sex. Zeleny, however,
: conspiciously failed to provide any quote backing up his interpretation.
: I think he's lying. Got quotes showing that Kant was referring to sex
: for purposes other than reproduction when he wrote this, Zeleny ?
I believe that this application of Kant's comments is Mr. Zeleny's
own invention. I wouldn't say that he's "lying," but I would say that
he's seriously in error.
: Anyone who's studied Kant able to shed light ?
I'm in this for the fun of it. I've read the "Foundations of the
Metaphysics of Moral," and "A Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics." I
have his "Critique of Pure Reason," but have not gotten around to reading
it, though it's been in my library for over ten years now. I suppose I
will do so fairly soon now that my curiosity is picqued, but I can't say
that anything Mr. Zeleny has put forth as an argument has required any
in-depth knowledge of Kant in order to refute it. Any elementary course
in Ethics would allow one to stand one's own ground with him, based on
what I've read of his postings.
Michael Winnett
In article <3iounk$d...@saba.info.ucla.edu>, Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) writes:
snip
>Perhaps you ought to take the trouble to think about it. If morality is
>proposed course of action that directly contravenes the conditions of
>your freedom, rationality, or agency, cannot be morally acceptable.
The passage which you originally quoted referred to fantasising
and did not seem to refer to homosexual activity specifically.
IMO the argument put rests on one of two assumptions.
1/ that non-reproductive sexual activity is not conducive to to the
survival of the individual.
2/ that......ditto......................of the species.
If so can you explain which of these represents your view, and how
you intend to prove that it is a correct assumption.
Mick
Michael Zeleny
orp...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Gary Phillips) writes:
::: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
:::: Correction: far from "quoting someone as Kant", I quote good old
:::: Kant himself, from _The Metaphysics of Morals_, _The Doctrine of
:::: Virtue_, Part I, Chapter I -- "Man's Duty to Himself as an Animal
:::: Being". As regards "the entire point of what he taught us", it
:::: readily yields an a priori argument to the effect that any attempt
:::: at a moral apology of homosexual (or otherwise essentially sterile
:::: and reproductively counterpurposive) acts must constitute irrational
:::: aesthetization of morality, in so far as it is bound to rest on the
:::: specious arrogation of a unique moral privilege to a class of people
:::: distinguished by their peculiar inclinations. No claim to special
:::: entitlement could be more inimical to the spirit of autonomous moral
:::: legislation; and hence it comes as no surprise to see Kant argue
:::: that "unnatural lust, which is complete abandonment of oneself to
:::: animal inclination, makes man not only an object of enjoyment but,
:::: still further, a thing that is contrary to nature, that is, a
:::: _loathsome_ object, and so deprives him of all respect to himself."
BP:
::: I fail, Mikhail, to see how this spurting proves anything at all. He
::: cites no evidence, gives no examples, refers to no-one else; he merely
::: is sitting at his desk intellectually masturbating about what he thinks
::: is right. By reKanting his words you prove not a goddamn thing.
MZ:
:: Perhaps you ought to take the trouble to think about it. If morality is
:: a universal constraint on permissible action of free rational agents,
GP:
: Well, that's an interesting enough question all by itself, isn't it?
: And not one to which moral philosophers necessarily have to agree upon the
: answer. Even if morality is taken as a universal constraint upon
: permissible action, the content of what those restraints restrain is a
: subject with which Kantian ethics is ill-equipped to deal. Using another
: example from Frankena, "one can adopt the maxim that one will never help
: those in need and will this to be a universal law." Admittedly, one may
: find himself in the inconsistent position of having to will the abrogation
: of this maxim. "Still, it is not hard to imagine a man whose fortune is
: fairly sure or one who is willing to be consistent and to take the
: consquences of his maxim's being universally acted on; if there are such
: people, Kant's test [the categorical imperative] will not suffice to
: establish benevolence as a duty. Of course, one might conclude that it is
: not a duty just because it does not pass this test; but this seems a rather
: drastic conclusion, and deontological as he was, even Kant could not draw
: it."
If you must name-drop, try to choose somebody more impressive than a
tendentious third-rater. Kant discusses benevolence in the Groundwork
423, in the context of testing a maxim of willing never to help anyone
else. He concludes that its universal form contradicts the empirical
fact that human weakness compels men to seek and desire help from
others in times of need, and hence that a categorical refusal to help
anyone else is contrary to duty. On the other hand, this reasoning
does not establish a perfect duty to help others at all times, in so
far as rational agency does not depend on *constant* assistance from
other rational agents. So Frankena's comments are both textually
irrelevant and substantially nonsensical.
MZ:
:: any
:: proposed course of action that directly contravenes the conditions of
:: your freedom, rationality, or agency, cannot be morally acceptable. So
:: Kant tells you that, since you owe your very provenance as an agent to a
:: single fertile act of sexual intercourse, any necessarily infertile form
:: of sexual intercourse cannot be willed to be an instance of a lawlike
:: choice, in so far as its instantiation at the moment of your conception
:: would have preempted your biological existence as a necessary condition
:: of your current moral deliberation.
GP:
: And although such a blanket type of rule which overlooks, as it
: does, a universe of subtlety can easily be conditioned so that the false
: dilemma you pose is no further threat to the conditions of one's moral
: agency, freedom, and rationality.
: When I was young and would do something that my mom didn't like,
: she would sometimes say, "What if everyone acted like that?" as if this
: thought ought to give one pause. Of course, it need not give one pause at
: all, since the obvious retort is that not everyone ever has nor currently
: does act in any one way. I believe it is safe to assume that we can rely
: on the variety, multiplicity, inventiveness and sheer bull-headedness of
: ordinary human beings everywhere to ensure that "everyone" never will.
Translation: the conscientious homosexual perforce believes that it is safe
to assume that he can rely on the variety, multiplicity, inventiveness, and
sheer bull-headedness of ordinary human beings everywhere to ensure that
"everyone" never will follow his singular, unique, exceptional, sui generis,
and extraordinary lifestyle. The trouble with this form of fanciful and
elitist self-representation is that it is but a shade of subjective coloring
away from the vulgar characterization of homosexuality as aberrant, deviant,
abnormal, perverted, unnatural, and anomalous. Only exquisitely oblivious
arrogance can sustain the distinction between the norms incumbent upon hoi
polloi and exceptions allowed to the morally different.
GP:
: Heck, we can't even agree on the foundations of moral philosophy.
: What good reason is there to imagine that everyone would act the same way,
: no matter how strongly one *wished* it?
A free man represents himself as subject to universal laws of his own
legislation, because he understands his moral constraint and prerogative
to be grounded in nothing but his autonomous rationality, on par with the
universal laws of physical nature. In other words, he realizes that his
sentiment and inclination are utterly irrelevant to moral deliberation.
By contrast, your entire performance in this debate can be understood in
terms of an effort to stake an incontrovertible claim to moral entitlement
on the basis of your sexual preference.
Michael Zeleny
quir...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz writes:
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:: Kari Cowan <co...@luna.cas.usf.edu> writes:
::: No offense sir, but you cannot justify widespread derogatory
::: generalization by quoting someone as Kant. To do so misses the entire
::: point of what he taught us.
:: Correction: far from "quoting someone as Kant", I quote good old
:: Kant himself, from _The Metaphysics of Morals_, _The Doctrine of
:: Virtue_, Part I, Chapter I -- "Man's Duty to Himself as an Animal
:: Being". As regards "the entire point of what he taught us", it
:: readily yields an a priori argument to the effect that any attempt
:: at a moral apology of homosexual (or otherwise essentially sterile
:: and reproductively counterpurposive) acts must constitute irrational
:: aesthetization of morality, in so far as it is bound to rest on the
:: specious arrogation of a unique moral privilege to a class of people
:: distinguished by their peculiar inclinations. No claim to special
:: entitlement could be more inimical to the spirit of autonomous moral
:: legislation; and hence it comes as no surprise to see Kant argue
:: that "unnatural lust, which is complete abandonment of oneself to
:: animal inclination, makes man not only an object of enjoyment but,
:: still further, a thing that is contrary to nature, that is, a
:: _loathsome_ object, and so deprives him of all respect to himself."
: The exact lines of Zeleny's quoted material:
:
: "unnatural lust, which is complete abandonment of oneself to
: animal inclination, makes man not only an object of enjoyment but,
: still further, a thing that is contrary to nature, that is, a
: _loathsome_ object, and so deprives him of all respect to himself."
:
: I notice that Zeleny ripped this from context. On the face of it,
: it would appear to be referring to lust divorced from control by
: reason and an higher ethical standard than mere animal inclination.
As a matter of fact, Kant explains his terms (in the Metaphysics of
Morals) by contrasting unnatural use of sexual organs and capacities
of another, with the natural, or potentially procreative use thereof,
and stipulating that the former "takes place either with a person of
the same sex or with an animal of a nonhuman species." (MM277)
Note that the stipulation of the involvement of another, be it a
person or a nonhuman animal, is inessential to the moral denunciation
of all essentially non-procreative sex, to the extent that mere self-
debasement might be considered as blameworthy as the debasement of
another. In addition to the functional definition of unnatural lust,
Kant offers a phenomenal characterization of this proclivity:
Lust is called _unnatural_ if a man is aroused to it not by
a real object but by his imagining it, so that he himself
creates one contrapurposively; for in this way imagination
brings forth a desire contrary to nature's end, and indeed to
an end even more important than that of love of life itself,
since it aims at the preservation of the whole species and not
only of the individual.
The implication is clear, -- given that nature's end in instilling
lustful feelings within ourselves is the preservation of our species,
it follows that any imaginative deviation from the reproductive ends
of nature, is utterly blameworthy. For consider the maxim: "A man
should engage in an act contrapurposive to nature's end in bringing
him about." Now, the nomological counterpart of the maxim would be
necessarily applicable at all times and places, given type-identical
antecedent conditions. Thus in willing through this maxim as if it
were a universal law of nature, the agent ipso facto wills away the
very conditions of his own existence qua member of his species, and so
wills away the possibility of his own willing. Contradiction.
: Zeleny contends that this "unnatural lust" was meant to refer to
: reproductively sterile sex, such as homosexual sex. Zeleny, however,
: conspiciously failed to provide any quote backing up his interpretation.
For more fun along the same lines, look into the discussion of the
morality of mutilation, as conducted in the aforementioned text.
Although Kant thinks that castration is a big no-no, whenever it is
performed for the sake of securing a livelihood in the entertainment
industry, he is willing to give it his seal of approval whenever it
is performed as punishment for buggery.
: I think he's lying. Got quotes showing that Kant was referring to sex
: for purposes other than reproduction when he wrote this, Zeleny ?
Read the book, Mr Q.
: Anyone who's studied Kant able to shed light ?
This should be fun.
: - Tony Q.
: ---
: Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand (email for phone no)
: "Arthur, you forgot to mention the chicken that gave birth to a human
: in Atlanta. Tuesday last. No one knows. It ate the evidence."
: - John Constantine.
Michael Zeleny
Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
:Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
:: This thread persists primarily as a means for Bruce Garrett to call
:: me a Nazi sympathizer because of my view that homosexual acts are
:: morally wrong, and for me to expose the tawdry and mawkish basis of
:: his compulsive attempts to justify his sexuality to all and sundry.
: A lie. Many people can manage to believe that homosexual acts are
: morally wrong without going over the line into hate speech. It is the
: fact that you hate, and lie about the fact that you hate, and make it
: obvious that you lie about the fact that you hate, and keep repeating
: this loop, which makes the Nazi comparison go.
In other words, Gene Ward Smith is objecting to outspoken opposition
to his outspoken sexual perversion. There still remains a question of
what constitutes hate speech. I explicitly repudiate acts of violence
and legal persecution aiming to censure acts that occur in private
between consenting adults. Nevertheless, Mr Smith elects to classify
my moral opposition to buggery on par with Hitler's persecution of the
alleged Untermenschen. Would he be acting as irrationally without the
incentive of his deviant sensibilities?
Kyle Elisabeth Overstreet
: Perhaps you ought to take the trouble to think about it. If morality is
: a universal constraint on permissible action of free rational agents, any
: proposed course of action that directly contravenes the conditions of
: your freedom, rationality, or agency, cannot be morally acceptable. So
: Kant tells you that, since you owe your very provenance as an agent to a
: single fertile act of sexual intercourse, any necessarily infertile form
: of sexual intercourse cannot be willed to be an instance of a lawlike
: choice, in so far as its instantiation at the moment of your conception
: would have preempted your biological existence as a necessary condition
: of your current moral deliberation. Hence a natural creature that freely
: wills away the sole engendering condition of its natural kind, thereby
: implicitly arrogates to itself the prerogative of being an exception to
: the universal moral order. As regards the rest of your claim, I will get
: back to you once the fruit of your intellectual labors begins to approach
: the moral credibility of Manny's solitary exercises.
: mikhail zel...@math.ucla.edu tread
: writing from the disneyland of formal philosophy on
: "Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes." me
Is that what my California education dollar is supporting? The use of the
categorical imperative against non-procreative sex? No wonder we always
think of UCLA as the satellite campus.
The application of the categorical imperative in this way is specious,
because this argument makes the untrue assumption that the nonprocreative
sexual act, if not performed, would have resulted in the performance of a
procreative sexual act.
The reduction of this line of thinking is thus: I am now posting on
USENET instead of having sex. If my parents had been posting on USENET
instead of having sex on the night of my conception, I would not have
been born, and thus would be unable to post on USENET. Thus, posting on
USENET is immoral, because the universal application of it would make my
choice to do so impossible (not to mention the bandwidth crunch!)
I won't even bother to address your unreasoned conflation on
nonprocreative sex and homosexuality.
Michael Zeleny
: On Sun, 26 Feb 1995 BPB...@husc.harvard.edu wrote:
:: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
MZ:
::: The refractory homosexual is a pathetic freak of
::: nature who, whenever left to his own tawdry devices, acts as a vivid
::: reminder of the misery concomitant with willful deviance from the
::: moral ends of mankind.
GWS:
: Note, once again, that this is hate speech, and shows yet again that the
: comparison of Zeleny with the Nazis is quite apt. Note also that Zeleny
: (in a manner worthy of any Nazi, incidentally) thinks that to be a "freak
: of nature" is to be worthy of contempt; so in effect he is pouring hatred
: and contempt not just on homosexuals, but also on people with all the
: variety of ills that can or might cause them to be termed "freaks of
: nature" by spiteful homunculi of Zeleny's kind.
On the contrary, the above would apply only to people who deliberately
cultivate and proudly exhibit their diseases. A man who strives to
overcome his unwholesome inclinations merits the highest praise. But
a refractory homosexual is no different from a refractory coprophage.
GWS:
: You might also take note that in calling homosexuals "freaks of nature",
: he is contradicting the Robertsonesque "lifestyle choice" rhetoric he at
: times employs elsewhere. In his utter intellectual dishonesty, he finds
: any stick which is handy at the time a good enough one to beat homosexuals
: with.
Observe that I characterized refractory homosexuality as a willful
deviance. Inclination is mostly determined by involuntary factors;
acting upon it is invariably a matter of free choice. Not that I
would expect you to exercise your reading comprehension skills in
the midst of a self-justificatory conniption fit.
MZ:
::: Consider that the passage I have cited is part of Kant's discussion of
::: sodomy in _The Metaphysics of Morals_. Read the book.
BP:
:: You ignored my statement as usual and refused to answer my concerns.
:: If I wanted to read Kant I would be on alt.deadguy.Kant. Your logic,
:: though couched prettily, is bunk. Try again, this time less personal
:: attacks and a little INFORMATION would get you further.
GWS:
: It doesn't matter in any case. If you actually try to argue on the basis
: of Kant, as I once did, he backpedles at once, he "holds no brief for the
: Konigsburg wanker." Zeleny is even more of a pretentious fraud than most
: people realize, and that is saying a lot.
The high point of your argument "on the basis of Kant" was running a
thread dedicated to my putatively putrid pink butthole and threatening
to sabotage my career prospects. You are a bad sport, Mr Smith, but
that is to be expected. Every outburst of self-serving flatulence
emitted by your net persona goes a long way towards confirming the
timeless stereotype of the whining, scheming, hysterical rimadonna.
You are a worthy representative of your kind. Keep up the good work.
cordially, don't
Gary Phillips
: In article <3ir2c9$3...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com>
: orp...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Gary Phillips) writes:
: : Sex is not stealing unless it is rape. and in that case, it is not sex.
: : Thus, the two activities (sex and stealing) are completely different in
: : their essential nature, and no valid comparison between them is possible.
: The issue of consent is irrelevant to the analogy.
Untrue. The issue of consent is everything to the analogy because the
ability to consent (or not) is a part of the very nature of rational
beings by virtue of their moral autonomy. The fact that the very idea of
ownership proceeds directly from the free exercise of the moral autonomy
of our body-selves in itself and in the world necessarily implies that we
must be free to do with our bodies and our property, or to have done to
our bodies and our property what we will, and the corresponding right to
refuse such consent. This is the basis for every person's sexual freedom.
Theivery and rape violate the categorical imperative precisely because
they violate that which properly belongs to the moral autonomy of another
rational being. This is a more fundamental error than an abridgement of
the categorical imperative because the existence and binding force of the
categorical imperative *necessarily rest upon* the sanctity of the moral
autonomy of rational beings.
: On the other hand, numerous illicit actions cannot
: gain legitimacy through consent. In this category, murder and buggery
: are on par.
Homosexual sex acts are not illicit. The absolute right to do to one's
body and to have done to it what one wills is implicit in the moral
autonomy of the will.
: : Simply put, the problem with your argument is that you conflate two
: : separate moral issues: that of propagation and that of sexual interaction.
: : The issue of propagation becomes a moral issue in sexual ethics only
: : insofar as conception is possible in the course of any particular sexual
: : interaction. Regarding sexual interactions outside that limited
: : framework, your maxim says nothing constructive (nor even merely
: : informative) whatsoever. To say that propagation is the sole justification
: : for sexual activity is as logically short-sighted and morally obsolete and
: : incomplete as it is outdated and practially untenable.
: That is not at all what is being said. Kant does not posit a need for
: justifying any activity in general, and sexual activity in particular.
: Rather, his point is that in so far as generative powers inhere in the
: sexual act, any sexual act that excludes generation of necessity,
: cannot constitute an instance of a universal law.
In this he is wrong. Generative powers inhere only to particular
kinds of sexual acts, not to all sexual acts. Therefore, only those
sexual acts to which the possibility of those generative powers being
realized is present are subject to moral imperatives concerning them.
To speak otherwise is simply to conflate two distinct moral issues.
: ::: I shall will that every human being propagate at least once
: ::: during his or her lifetime, in order to ensure the survival of the species
: ::: and leave him to pursue whatever ends he may in the rest of his sexual
: ::: activities in his lifetime.
: :: This willing has nothing to do with the maxim of any given action.
: : Nonsense. The maxim is clearly stated. It is that which I have
: : willed, as stated above. If you fail to recognize it as a maxim, it can
: : only be because of your aforementioned conflation of the issues of
: : propagation and sexual interaction.
: It is possible to recognize a functional connection between two types
: of action, whilst maintaining the relevant type distinctions. As
: regards your clear statement, it is not a maxim but a mantra. To
: recognize the legitimacy of subsuming extenuating intentions into the
: maxim of one's action is tantamount to gainsaying the application of
: the Categorical Imperative. Any course of action whatsoever can be
: promoted to the status of an instance of a universal law of nature,
: given sufficient laxity with explicitly stipulated exceptions, and
: sufficient blindness to the logical form of universal laws.
I am not responsible for the failure of Kant's theory to tell us
what kinds of content are to be considered morally relevant when
formulating imperatives. One can also will that everyone whistle in the
dark. It's not a moral issue either, but there is nothing in Kant's
theory that can tell us so.
: : From what you have stated in our correspondence, your maxim can
: : only be that every human being has the moral obligation to reproduce, which
: : is fine, as far as it goes. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with the
: : morality of any sexual act that any individual may take part outside the
: : narrow parameters within which propagation is possible. The abject
: : inadequacy and irrelevancy of your maxim to the remainder of human
: : sexual activity is appalling.
: : Nevertheless, I have taken your proposed maxim and shown its
: : absurdity by carrying it out to its logical end: reductio ad absurdam
: : (above, below and previously, taken together).
: This is dreadfully confused. Maxims make no reference, either
: explicitly or implicitly, to any moral obligation. The purpose of
: submitting your maxim to the test of the formula of the law of nature
: is not to reaffirm the pre-established tenets of morality, but to
: discover the inherent moral merit of a proposed course of action,
: formulated independently of any conception of duty or value.
Very well. Please explain how the maxim "one ought to whistle in the
dark" is of moral merit. It certainly meets the test of
universalizability and it certainly has doesn't treat anyone as merely a
means. Imperatives, by definition, are a "command of reason." And if
their form corresponds to and meets the criterion of the categorical
imperative they are, in fact, obligatory on all rational beings -- at
least according to Kant. So I ask you, are we all obliged to whistle in
the dark?
Michael Zeleny
orp...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Gary Phillips) writes:
: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
:: orp...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Gary Phillips) writes:
::: Sex is not stealing unless it is rape. and in that case, it is not sex.
::: Thus, the two activities (sex and stealing) are completely different in
::: their essential nature, and no valid comparison between them is possible.
:: The issue of consent is irrelevant to the analogy.
: Untrue. The issue of consent is everything to the analogy because the
: ability to consent (or not) is a part of the very nature of rational
: beings by virtue of their moral autonomy. The fact that the very idea of
: ownership proceeds directly from the free exercise of the moral autonomy
: of our body-selves in itself and in the world necessarily implies that we
: must be free to do with our bodies and our property, or to have done to
: our bodies and our property what we will, and the corresponding right to
: refuse such consent. This is the basis for every person's sexual freedom.
: Theivery and rape violate the categorical imperative precisely because
: they violate that which properly belongs to the moral autonomy of another
: rational being. This is a more fundamental error than an abridgement of
: the categorical imperative because the existence and binding force of the
: categorical imperative *necessarily rest upon* the sanctity of the moral
: autonomy of rational beings.
Ownership bears no relevance to the subject in question. You are
gratuitously importing Lockean assumptions of possessive individualism
into a context wholly alien thereto. Moral autonomy is a condition of
the intelligible nature of man, which has no direct and necessary
bearing on his corporeal nature; consequently no claim of property
rights in one's body can be grounded therein. Indeed, the consistency
of reciprocal coercion with full moral autonomy is discussed by Kant in
_The Metaphysics of Morals_, 232 (p 57 of the Cambridge edition). For
instance, on the Kantian construal of marriage, there can be no rape
between the spouses whose relationship is grounded in a total mutual
alienation of bodily rights. And suicide and self-mutilation are not
only deemed immoral, but may be regarded as illicit. (MM 422-3/218-9)
:: On the other hand, numerous illicit actions cannot
:: gain legitimacy through consent. In this category, murder and buggery
:: are on par.
: Homosexual sex acts are not illicit. The absolute right to do to one's
: body and to have done to it what one wills is implicit in the moral
: autonomy of the will.
Kant does not think so, and neither do I -- though I would not go as
far as recommending castration as a condign punishment for buggery,
under the ius talionis. As an aside, I would be very happy to find an
incontrovertible moral ground for an inviolable right to privacy, but
it just does not seem to be compatible with any sort of social contract.
::: Simply put, the problem with your argument is that you conflate two
::: separate moral issues: that of propagation and that of sexual interaction.
::: The issue of propagation becomes a moral issue in sexual ethics only
::: insofar as conception is possible in the course of any particular sexual
::: interaction. Regarding sexual interactions outside that limited
::: framework, your maxim says nothing constructive (nor even merely
::: informative) whatsoever. To say that propagation is the sole justification
::: for sexual activity is as logically short-sighted and morally obsolete and
::: incomplete as it is outdated and practially untenable.
:: That is not at all what is being said. Kant does not posit a need for
:: justifying any activity in general, and sexual activity in particular.
:: Rather, his point is that in so far as generative powers inhere in the
:: sexual act, any sexual act that excludes generation of necessity,
:: cannot constitute an instance of a universal law.
: In this he is wrong. Generative powers inhere only to particular
: kinds of sexual acts, not to all sexual acts. Therefore, only those
: sexual acts to which the possibility of those generative powers being
: realized is present are subject to moral imperatives concerning them.
: To speak otherwise is simply to conflate two distinct moral issues.
I beg to differ. Sexual gratification is biologically correlated with
sexual reproduction, just as the latter is correlated with natural
mortality. So the generative powers are latent in each particular
instance of gratifying deployment of the genitalia. By gainsaying the
obvious, you are merely attempting to exclude homosexual acts from the
purview of moral judgment.
::::: I shall will that every human being propagate at least once
::::: during his or her lifetime, in order to ensure the survival of the
::::: species and leave him to pursue whatever ends he may in the rest of
::::: his sexual activities in his lifetime.
:::: This willing has nothing to do with the maxim of any given action.
::: Nonsense. The maxim is clearly stated. It is that which I have
::: willed, as stated above. If you fail to recognize it as a maxim, it can
::: only be because of your aforementioned conflation of the issues of
::: propagation and sexual interaction.
:: It is possible to recognize a functional connection between two types
:: of action, whilst maintaining the relevant type distinctions. As
:: regards your clear statement, it is not a maxim but a mantra. To
:: recognize the legitimacy of subsuming extenuating intentions into the
:: maxim of one's action is tantamount to gainsaying the application of
:: the Categorical Imperative. Any course of action whatsoever can be
:: promoted to the status of an instance of a universal law of nature,
:: given sufficient laxity with explicitly stipulated exceptions, and
:: sufficient blindness to the logical form of universal laws.
: I am not responsible for the failure of Kant's theory to tell us
: what kinds of content are to be considered morally relevant when
: formulating imperatives. One can also will that everyone whistle in the
: dark. It's not a moral issue either, but there is nothing in Kant's
: theory that can tell us so.
In other words, notwithstanding copious scientific and commonsensical
evidence for the moral relevance of sexual behavior, I am expected to
repudiate it on your say-so.
::: From what you have stated in our correspondence, your maxim
::: can only be that every human being has the moral obligation to
::: reproduce, which is fine, as far as it goes. But this has nothing
::: whatsoever to do with the morality of any sexual act that any
::: individual may take part outside the narrow parameters within which
::: propagation is possible. The abject inadequacy and irrelevancy of
::: your maxim to the remainder of human sexual activity is appalling.
::: Nevertheless, I have taken your proposed maxim and shown its
::: absurdity by carrying it out to its logical end: reductio ad absurdam
::: (above, below and previously, taken together).
:: This is dreadfully confused. Maxims make no reference, either
:: explicitly or implicitly, to any moral obligation. The purpose of
:: submitting your maxim to the test of the formula of the law of nature
:: is not to reaffirm the pre-established tenets of morality, but to
:: discover the inherent moral merit of a proposed course of action,
:: formulated independently of any conception of duty or value.
: Very well. Please explain how the maxim "one ought to whistle in the
: dark" is of moral merit. It certainly meets the test of
: universalizability and it certainly has doesn't treat anyone as merely a
: means. Imperatives, by definition, are a "command of reason." And if
: their form corresponds to and meets the criterion of the categorical
: imperative they are, in fact, obligatory on all rational beings -- at
: least according to Kant. So I ask you, are we all obliged to whistle in
: the dark?
It is very gratifying to see you finally attend to the commonplace
discussions of Kantian ethics. To answer your question, you cannot
will anything that, once universalized, would interfere with your
sleep. You might have done better with the traditional example of
facing north at noon, which interferes only with a contingent social
responsibility of minding the store. Incidentally, the observation
of the social contingency of the CI injunction against theft has
been famously made by Hegel. A little bit of learning would aid you
in criticizing a theory on its own terms.
quir...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
>Perhaps you ought to take the trouble to think about it. If morality is
>a universal constraint on permissible action of free rational agents, any
>proposed course of action that directly contravenes the conditions of
>your freedom, rationality, or agency, cannot be morally acceptable.
heterosexual creation of children. The continuing reproduction of
the human species is not based on the necessity for any *one* particular
person to become or make someone else become pregnant.
It is based on the requirement that a *sufficient* number of the members
of the human race become pregnant. There is no sign that homosexual sex,
contraception, the rhythm method or oral sex has dented this aggregate
total.
>So Kant tells you that, since you owe your very provenance as an agent to a
>single fertile act of sexual intercourse, any necessarily infertile form
>of sexual intercourse cannot be willed to be an instance of a lawlike
>choice, in so far as its instantiation at the moment of your conception
>would have preempted your biological existence as a necessary condition
>of your current moral deliberation.
intercourse from occuring is immoral. Homosexuality does not prevent
heterosexual intercourse. The population curves demonstrate this quite
well.
I mean, *think*. You're stating that *any* non-fertile sex act is
"immoral".
>Hence a natural creature that freely wills away the sole engendering
>condition of its natural kind, thereby implicitly arrogates to itself the
>prerogative of being an exception to the universal moral order.
How do homosexuals prevent heterosexual reproduction sufficient unto
sustaining the human race, that being the condition for those homosexuals
to appear ?
Jesus, Zeleny, when your arguments are so crappy that even people who
haven't studied any philosophy can drive holes through them, it's time to
retire.
- Tony Q.
---
Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand (email for phone no)
"A cripple taught me how to dance, a blind man taught me how to see.
A fallen angel taught me how to fly, and a prisoner taught me to be free."
- Simple Image.
Gary Phillips
: In other words, Gene Ward Smith is objecting to outspoken opposition
: to his outspoken sexual perversion. There still remains a question of
: what constitutes hate speech. I explicitly repudiate acts of violence
: and legal persecution aiming to censure acts that occur in private
: between consenting adults. Nevertheless, Mr Smith elects to classify
: my moral opposition to buggery on par with Hitler's persecution of the
: alleged Untermenschen. Would he be acting as irrationally without the
: incentive of his deviant sensibilities?
Michael,
How can you reconcile a right to "private acts between consenting
[homosexual] adults with your alleged "moral" opposition to homosexual
sexual engagements (let's ignore the fact that "buggery" is something
that heterosexuals engage in at a much higher rate than gay people do)?
Brian Kane
parents acted heterosexually, it is immoral to act homosexually:
:Perhaps you ought to take the trouble to think about it. If morality is
:a universal constraint on permissible action of free rational agents, any
:proposed course of action that directly contravenes the conditions of
:your freedom, rationality, or agency, cannot be morally acceptable.
You have an exceedingly poor grasp of causality.
--
Brian Kane~~~Astroboy~~~kane@{buast1,bu-ast,buast7,protostar}.bu.edu
"The altar boy's on fire!" Mary Lorson _Bring It Down_ (1993)
"Those dudes up in the UFO described the truth as a yellow lifeboat"
Michael Zeleny
: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) sez that since our
: parents acted heterosexually, it is immoral to act homosexually:
:: Perhaps you ought to take the trouble to think about it. If morality is
:: a universal constraint on permissible action of free rational agents, any
:: proposed course of action that directly contravenes the conditions of
:: your freedom, rationality, or agency, cannot be morally acceptable.
: You have an exceedingly poor grasp of causality.
Try to conceive a world wherein every dioecious creature deliberately
chooses essentially sterile forms of intercourse on each occasion of
sexual contact. Since such creatures must owe their provenance to an
instance of fertile sexual contact, a world operating in accordance
with the stated principle is logically impossible.
The homosexual claims that his choice to bugger his partner in no way
contravenes the possibility of conception of other creatures of their
kind occurring elsewhere, on a different occasion, between some other
human couple indulging in a disparate, fertile form of sex. But in
choosing to act in the way he does, he wilfully construes himself as
an anomaly to the principle in accordance with which such generative
action would occur -- and therefore as a deliberate exception to the
moral condition of his own genesis. Since morality admits of no
exceptions, he is acting immorally.
Our parents could not but (non possum non) have acted heterosexually
so as to become our parents; hence it is immoral to act homosexually.
: --
: Brian Kane~~~Astroboy~~~kane@{buast1,bu-ast,buast7,protostar}.bu.edu
: "The altar boy's on fire!" Mary Lorson _Bring It Down_ (1993)
: "Those dudes up in the UFO described the truth as a yellow lifeboat"
cordially, don't
Michael Zeleny
: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
:: ka...@buast7.bu.edu (Brian Kane) writes:
::: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) sez that since our
::: parents acted heterosexually, it is immoral to act homosexually:
:::: Perhaps you ought to take the trouble to think about it. If morality is
:::: a universal constraint on permissible action of free rational agents, any
:::: proposed course of action that directly contravenes the conditions of
:::: your freedom, rationality, or agency, cannot be morally acceptable.
::: You have an exceedingly poor grasp of causality.
:: Try to conceive a world wherein every dioecious creature deliberately
:: chooses essentially sterile forms of intercourse on each occasion of
:: sexual contact.
: Would you care to calculate the probability of this happening?
Consideration of probability is irrelevant because moral obligations
cannot be delegated. Otherwise you could excuse yourself from the
performance of any duty, arguing that a society of predominantly
conscientious men could -- and does -- suffer and sustain a small
proportion of parasites.
:: Since such creatures must owe their provenance to an
:: instance of fertile sexual contact,
: Morality isn't about acting because of an "owing" to the events of the
: past---it's about acting out of a sense of *present* respect for absolute
: notions of "property", "property" being any number of things including life,
: volition, ideas, and material possessions. In short, there is no temporal
: notion to morality.
Life, volition, and ideas are wholly dissimilar from any material
possessions, in arising and attaching to their owners irrespectively of
any social conventions, and in being physically inalienable therefrom.
Furthermore, morality can and does arise before and independently of the
notion of material ownership, or any other social institution whatsoever,
though this fact may be difficult to grasp for someone happily inured to
the cupidity and rapaciousness of the Anglo-American tradition. And if
we incurred no moral obligation to the events of the past, retributive
justice would be nothing but a hollow farce.
:: a world operating in accordance
:: with the stated principle is logically impossible.
: Exactly. So the chance of this happening is zero. Thus there is
: no moral imperative for everyone to reproduce.
Surely if there is a non-negative probability of an average primate
deciding to dedicate the rest of his days to sterile pursuits, there is
ipso facto a slight yet non-negative probability of the rest of his peers
deciding to follow suit. But since the universality of moral obligation
rules out all probabilistic consideration, there is no need for you to
concern yourself with a subject you evidently know nothing about.
:: The homosexual claims that his choice to bugger his partner in no way
:: contravenes the possibility of conception of other creatures of their
:: kind occurring elsewhere, on a different occasion, between some other
:: human couple indulging in a disparate, fertile form of sex.
: Right...(except that heterosexuals claim this, too...)
Are you trying to show that if buggery is good for Boris and Natasha, it
must be equally good for Brian and Bruce? Then consider that Boris and
Natasha have the immediately available option of changing the venue for a
more fruitful outcome, without changing or dissolving their partnership.
Not so with Brian and Bruce.
:: But in choosing to act in the way he does, he wilfully construes himself
:: as an anomaly to the principle in accordance with which such generative
:: action would occur -- and therefore as a deliberate exception to the
:: moral condition of his own genesis.
: Nonsense. There are no moral conditions of being. Only moral actions.
Somebody had to take a moral responsibility for his genesis, in a moral
action that constituted its moral condition.
:: Since morality admits of no exceptions, he is acting immorally.
: No, since the premise is *NOT* true (the premise being that
: there is a moral imperative for each individual to reproduce),
: this doe *NOT* follow.
In other words, you are pleading for exceptions to the common rule.
:: Our parents could not but (non possum non) have acted heterosexually
:: so as to become our parents; hence it is immoral to act homosexually.
: As I said, your notion of causality is all mixed up.
Quoting your own words does not make them more authoritative.
Gene Ward Smith
> How terribly nice for you to figure out a convoluted way of saying
> that vulgar moral rules do not apply to your extraordinary kind.
Gosh--Mikhail Zeleny, Man of the People and all around regular guy. Of
course, as we shall see, Zeleny violates his own moral rules all the time.
> I never assume a moral claim, Grasshopper -- I argue for it.
> Buggering your Adams House roommate is immoral because it is
> tantamount to willfully relinquishing your responsibility for
> the future generations to other couples, on other occasions,
> anywhere but the place where you happen to be at the moment.
Yet Zeleny admits to using contraceptive measures, which is an even greater
"violation", since it is undertaken for the purpose of preventing
conception, rather than being an incidental consequence of the type of
sexual activity in question. Zeleny is, according to Zeleny, an immoral
pervert.
--
Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/University of Toledo
gsm...@lab1.utoledo.edu
Gene Ward Smith
> The implication is clear, -- given that nature's end in instilling
> lustful feelings within ourselves is the preservation of our species,
> it follows that any imaginative deviation from the reproductive ends
> of nature, is utterly blameworthy.
In that case, I suggest you quit indulging in the perverse sexual activity
you boast of, Pervert.
By the way, what is your expert moral view on sexual activity with
people under the age of 18?
Gene Ward Smith
> Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
> In other words, Gene Ward Smith is objecting to outspoken opposition
> to his outspoken sexual perversion.
Excuse me, Pervert, but I am not the one defending what I call perversion,
you are the one defending and admitting to what you (if you were honest)
would be compelled to call sexual perversion.
So knock off the "perversion" claims, Pervert.
Caitlin Mackay Shaw
zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>Our parents could not but (non possum non) have acted heterosexually
>so as to become our parents; hence it is immoral to act homosexually.
By this line of reasoning, it is immoral for a woman to resist being
raped by a man, because her mother had sex with a man once.
See the problem? Simply because a thing can be good done *once* does
not mean it must be done *at all times*. For instance, Michael, if your
parents had spent all their time typing on UseNet you never would have
been born; therefore, it is immoral for you to spend *any* time at all,
ever, on UseNet.
As a side note, you fail to address the question of lesbians and
artificial insemination.
Caitlin
--
___-----______________________________________________________________-----___
____---____________-- Caitlin Shaw <cms...@princeton.edu> --___________---____
_____-_____________"There is no /one true way/." --M. Lackey____________-_____
Michael Zeleny
Correction -- unlike the ongoing sexual perusal of your orifices, normal
means of contraception do not prevent conception, but merely lessen its
natural likelihood, in view of the ever-present, non-negligible chance of
pregnancy remaining under all but the unjustifiably debilitating surgical
means of birth control. Since we have been over this ground many times
before, I surmise that the deterioration of your immune system under a
perpetual ingress of foreign proteins has gravely taxed and damaged your
modest cognitive faculties. One often hears of psychosomatic ailments --
but you afford a living example of a mind irremediably corrupted by
abject bodily degradation.
Gary Phillips
: and beside the fact that you have unjustifiably conflated the issues of
: propagation and sexuality beyond merit, your argument makes several
: unwarranted practical assumptions and smacks of misogyny upon
: further analysis.
: You really have to pull the wool over everyone's eyes here, including
: your own, by stating that you are not a consequentialist in this matter.
: The reality is that you can't *afford* to be a consequentialist because,
: when taken on consequentialist grounds, your argument falls apart even
: more quickly than it does on logical grounds alone, and you know this.
: The world is a limited space with limited resources within which we are
: irremediably bound. How "rational" and "responsible" is it to presume
: unlimited space and resources when formulating your propagational sexual
: ethic? The impracticality of your argument actually highlights and informs
: its logical absurdity. So long as you refuse to consider the consequences,
: you can pretend that you are being moral. But what good is a morality
: that is inherently incapable of being applied in the real world? How
: "logical" is it? I'll answer for you: It is, in a word, vacuous, both in
: terms of its "good" and in terms of its logic.
> Look out, folks -- here comes the hoary cliche' of buggery as Higher
> Malthusianism! Never mind that the position I had expounded contains
> nothing that would mandate indiscriminate reproduction, or prohibit
> responsible contraception.
Yes it does, Michael. What's the difference between "responsible
contraception" and oral or anal sex? They are all "essentially sterile" and
"counter-purposive" to procreation, to use your phraseology. If
"responsible contraception" is morally permissible, then so are oral and
anal sex, for exactly the same reasons, regardless of the sexes of the
parties involved.
Your position also mandates indiscriminate reproduction. If any
"essentially sterile" or "contrapurposive" sexual act is excluded as a
morally acceptable sexual option then, ipso facto, the only acceptable
sexual option is one which will lead to conception -- every time. Since
sexual abstinence is "essentially sterile" and "contrapurposive" to the
"natural ends" of sexuality, we cannot choose abstinence as a morally
acceptable option either. Therefore, every time the opportunity for a
successful act of reproduction presents itself, we are duty-bound to perform
it, if we accept your position. Ergo propter ita est.
Ready to concede? ;-)
Brian Kane
:In article <3j4n8s$2...@news.bu.edu> ka...@buast7.bu.edu (Brian Kane) writes:
::Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) sez that since our
::parents acted heterosexually, it is immoral to act homosexually:
:::Perhaps you ought to take the trouble to think about it. If morality is
:::a universal constraint on permissible action of free rational agents, any
:::proposed course of action that directly contravenes the conditions of
:::your freedom, rationality, or agency, cannot be morally acceptable.
::You have an exceedingly poor grasp of causality.
:Try to conceive a world wherein every dioecious creature deliberately
:chooses essentially sterile forms of intercourse on each occasion of
:sexual contact.
Would you care to calculate the probability of this happening?
:Since such creatures must owe their provenance to an
:instance of fertile sexual contact,
Morality isn't about acting because of an "owing" to the events of the
past---it's about acting out of a sense of *present* respect for absolute
notions of "property", "property" being any number of things including life,
volition, ideas, and material possessions. In short, there is no temporal
notion to morality.
:a world operating in accordance
:with the stated principle is logically impossible.
Exactly. So the chance of this happening is zero. Thus there is
no moral imperative for everyone to reproduce.
:The homosexual claims that his choice to bugger his partner in no way
:contravenes the possibility of conception of other creatures of their
:kind occurring elsewhere, on a different occasion, between some other
:human couple indulging in a disparate, fertile form of sex.
Right...(except that heterosexuals claim this, too...)
:But in choosing to act in the way he does, he wilfully construes himself as
:an anomaly to the principle in accordance with which such generative
:action would occur -- and therefore as a deliberate exception to the
:moral condition of his own genesis.
Nonsense. There are no moral conditions of being. Only moral actions.
:Since morality admits of no exceptions, he is acting immorally.
No, since the premise is *NOT* true (the premise being that
there is a moral imperative for each individual to reproduce),
this doe *NOT* follow.
:Our parents could not but (non possum non) have acted heterosexually
:so as to become our parents; hence it is immoral to act homosexually.
As I said, your notion of causality is all mixed up.
Michael Zeleny
orp...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Gary Phillips) writes:
: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
I do not believe that the government has the right to punish immoral
acts that occur between consenting adults. There is not enough
certainty in our moral reasoning to countenance the legislation of
morality.
Michael Zeleny
orp...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Gary Phillips) writes:
GP:
::: In addition to your argument being intrinsically absurd (logically)
::: and beside the fact that you have unjustifiably conflated the issues of
::: propagation and sexuality beyond merit, your argument makes several
::: unwarranted practical assumptions and smacks of misogyny upon
::: further analysis.
::: You really have to pull the wool over everyone's eyes here, including
::: your own, by stating that you are not a consequentialist in this matter.
::: The reality is that you can't *afford* to be a consequentialist because,
::: when taken on consequentialist grounds, your argument falls apart even
::: more quickly than it does on logical grounds alone, and you know this.
::: The world is a limited space with limited resources within which we are
::: irremediably bound. How "rational" and "responsible" is it to presume
::: unlimited space and resources when formulating your propagational sexual
::: ethic? The impracticality of your argument actually highlights and informs
::: its logical absurdity. So long as you refuse to consider the consequences,
::: you can pretend that you are being moral. But what good is a morality
::: that is inherently incapable of being applied in the real world? How
::: "logical" is it? I'll answer for you: It is, in a word, vacuous, both in
::: terms of its "good" and in terms of its logic.
MZ:
:: Look out, folks -- here comes the hoary cliche' of buggery as Higher
:: Malthusianism! Never mind that the position I had expounded contains
:: nothing that would mandate indiscriminate reproduction, or prohibit
:: responsible contraception.
GP:
: Yes it does, Michael. What's the difference between "responsible
: contraception" and oral or anal sex? They are all "essentially sterile"
: and "counter-purposive" to procreation, to use your phraseology. If
: "responsible contraception" is morally permissible, then so are oral and
: anal sex, for exactly the same reasons, regardless of the sexes of the
: parties involved.
I have an aversion to saying the same thing more than twice to any
single persom, without geting any signs of understanding in return.
It makes me wonder about the intellectual honesty and adequacy of my
interlocutor; and if I have no reason to regard him as anything other
than a mendacious moron, the conversation must come to an end. So
please help me out here. I have stated on several occasions that I
refer to essences in a precise technical sense, which ought to be
familiar to anyone who enjoyed a cursory acquaintance with the 2.5
millennia of the Western philosophical tradition, from Aristotle and
Aquinas to Putnam and Kripke. Nevertheless, you obstinately continue
to regard my "essentially impossible" as synonymous with "highly
unlikely". If you want to criticize your own arguments, there is no
need to talk to anyone else; just make like Travis Bickle facing the
mirror in _Taxi Driver_, and go for it. But if you prefer talking to
other people, consider doing so in mutually agreeable terms.
: Your position also mandates indiscriminate reproduction. If any
: "essentially sterile" or "contrapurposive" sexual act is excluded as a
: morally acceptable sexual option then, ipso facto, the only acceptable
: sexual option is one which will lead to conception -- every time. Since
: sexual abstinence is "essentially sterile" and "contrapurposive" to the
: "natural ends" of sexuality, we cannot choose abstinence as a morally
: acceptable option either. Therefore, every time the opportunity for a
: successful act of reproduction presents itself, we are duty-bound to perform
: it, if we accept your position. Ergo propter ita est.
Consider the difference between the compliance conditions of the
imperatives "Do not do X unless it can result in Y" and "Do X only if
it will result in Y." They diverge even if one assumes with Aristotle
that whatever is not explicitly permitted is ipso facto forbidden, and
with Schiller -- that whatever is not explicitly forbidden is ipso
facto permitted.
: Ready to concede? ;-)
You can do better than this.
Michael Zeleny
cms...@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Caitlin Mackay Shaw) writes:
: In article <3j59po$d...@saba.info.ucla.edu>
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:: Our parents could not but (non possum non) have acted heterosexually
:: so as to become our parents; hence it is immoral to act homosexually.
: By this line of reasoning, it is immoral for a woman to resist being
: raped by a man, because her mother had sex with a man once.
There is a great deal of confusion in this analogy. Resistance to
illegitimate (not antecedently and implicitly consented to) coercion
is legitimate regardless of the aims of your opponent. And generally
speaking, you are ignoring the difference between being obligated to
avoid doing X unless it can result in Y, and incurring an obligation
to do X if and only if it can result in Y.
: See the problem? Simply because a thing can be good done *once* does
: not mean it must be done *at all times*. For instance, Michael, if your
: parents had spent all their time typing on UseNet you never would have
: been born; therefore, it is immoral for you to spend *any* time at all,
: ever, on UseNet.
I already explained the difference between fucking and net-surfing to
another poster. Feel free to look into it on your own time.
: As a side note, you fail to address the question of lesbians and
: artificial insemination.
Just like you fail to take into account the difference between sexual
intercourse and a medical procedure.
Kyle Elisabeth Overstreet
: The homosexual claims that his choice to bugger his partner in no way
: contravenes the possibility of conception of other creatures of their
: kind occurring elsewhere, on a different occasion, between some other
: human couple indulging in a disparate, fertile form of sex. But in
: choosing to act in the way he does, he wilfully construes himself as
: an anomaly to the principle in accordance with which such generative
: action would occur -- and therefore as a deliberate exception to the
: moral condition of his own genesis. Since morality admits of no
: exceptions, he is acting immorally.
That presumes that the maxim demonstrated by that choice is that "sexual
nature is to be fulfilled in sodomy", or some such. If the maxim to which
one is following is "one must act in accordance with ones sexual nature,
if in doing so one does not violate the free agency of another", then the
Categorical Imperative doesn't apply. If my parents had violated this
principle, I would not have been born, because my parents weren't homosexual.
There are a number of problems with the CI as a basis for ethics; the
most central is that it is applicable to matters we consider nonmoral
(the choice of a trade) and inapplicable to matters we consider moral
(decieving the stalker, as mentioned before). Also, the deduction of the
maxim from circumstance always presumes the question, as above demonstrated.
In a sense, the CI makes epistemological assumptions that Kant himself
disallowed.
But you are much too busy grinding an axe to be of much use for generating
light on Kant.
Michael Zeleny
: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) attempts to defend the
: morality of contraception with a probabilistic argument:
:: Correction -- unlike the ongoing sexual perusal of your orifices, normal
:: means of contraception do not prevent conception, but merely lessen its
:: natural likelihood, in view of the ever-present, non-negligible chance of
:: pregnancy remaining under all but the unjustifiably debilitating surgical
:: means of birth control.
Note that in question is the physical possibility of a proximate
outcome of your own action.
: Interesting. This opinion flies in the face of your own moralistic
: philosophy:
: =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
: From: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
: Subject: Re: Bigots Target
: Date: 3 Mar 1995 02:00:34 GMT
: Message-ID: <3j5t82$m...@saba.info.ucla.edu>
:
: Consideration of probability is irrelevant because moral obligations
: cannot be delegated. Otherwise you could excuse yourself from the
: performance of any duty, arguing that a society of predominantly
: conscientious men could -- and does -- suffer and sustain a small
: proportion of parasites.
:
: Surely if there is a non-negative probability of an average primate
: deciding to dedicate the rest of his days to sterile pursuits, there is
: ipso facto a slight yet non-negative probability of the rest of his peers
: deciding to follow suit. But since the universality of moral obligation
: rules out all probabilistic consideration, there is no need for you to
: concern yourself with a subject you evidently know nothing about.
Note that this is a matter of relying on the possibility of action of
other autonomous agents -- as I clearly specified by reference to the
impossibility of delegation.
Something that came out in discussion two years ago was the moral
impossibility of justifying one's homosexual lifestyle as redeemable
by Wilsonesque attempts to enhance the inclusive fitness of his kin
(or his entire species). The main premiss, that one can conduct his
epicene influence in accordance with the precept of "do as I say, not
as I do", neglects the autonomy of one's putative beneficiaries by
imputing to them a limitless and unquestioning moral malleability --
for their choice between following his teachings and following his
example remains essentially beyond his control. Mill's defense of
private acts as morally irrelevant to the outsiders fails for similar
reasons.
: =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
: --
: Brian Kane~~~Astroboy~~~kane@{buast1,bu-ast,buast7,protostar}.bu.edu
: "The altar boy's on fire!" Mary Lorson _Bring It Down_ (1993)
: "Those dudes up in the UFO described the truth as a yellow lifeboat"
cordially, don't
Michael Zeleny
k...@netcom.com (Kyle Elisabeth Overstreet) writes:
: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
:: The homosexual claims that his choice to bugger his partner in no way
:: contravenes the possibility of conception of other creatures of their
:: kind occurring elsewhere, on a different occasion, between some other
:: human couple indulging in a disparate, fertile form of sex. But in
:: choosing to act in the way he does, he wilfully construes himself as
:: an anomaly to the principle in accordance with which such generative
:: action would occur -- and therefore as a deliberate exception to the
:: moral condition of his own genesis. Since morality admits of no
:: exceptions, he is acting immorally.
: That presumes that the maxim demonstrated by that choice is that "sexual
: nature is to be fulfilled in sodomy", or some such. If the maxim to which
: one is following is "one must act in accordance with ones sexual nature,
: if in doing so one does not violate the free agency of another", then the
: Categorical Imperative doesn't apply. If my parents had violated this
: principle, I would not have been born, because my parents weren't homosexual.
You are forgetting that the only morally relevant factors for the
determination of duty in an empirically given setting are autonomy,
agency, and rationality. Desires are explicitly enjoined from playing
a constitutive role therein, on pain of vitiating autonomy. See the
first part of the Groundwork for more details.
: There are a number of problems with the CI as a basis for ethics; the
: most central is that it is applicable to matters we consider nonmoral
: (the choice of a trade) and inapplicable to matters we consider moral
: (decieving the stalker, as mentioned before). Also, the deduction of the
: maxim from circumstance always presumes the question, as above demonstrated.
The first item is grounded in a common misunderstanding -- witness
Russell's complaint that the CI forbids all competition for scarce
resources. The reason people impute this idiocy to Kant, is because
they are too lazy to read the Metaphysics of Rights. The application
of the moral rule to any social context presupposes an antecedent
determination of a rational social order. You may choose a trade iff
the general maxim of your choice is consistent with the functioning of
such order. Here something needs to be said about relating the utopian
Kingdom of Ends to the status quo -- but that is a subject for another
sermon. As for deceiving the stalker, I think that coercion vitiates
communication -- in so far as he succeeds in unjustly forcing you to
speak, he forfeits his right to a true answer; and in so far as you
remain free not to answer, you have a right and a duty not to do so.
: In a sense, the CI makes epistemological assumptions that Kant himself
: disallowed.
You have not shown that.
: But you are much too busy grinding an axe to be of much use for generating
: light on Kant.
On the contrary, my axe is much duller than Manny's razor-sharp
hatchet -- after all, I am not the one proposing castration as the
just punishment for buggery.
Michael Zeleny
Jeffrey J Barbose <bar...@netcom.com> writes:
: Michael Zeleny, zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu writes:
:: ka...@buast7.bu.edu (Brian Kane) writes:
::: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
:::: ka...@buast7.bu.edu (Brian Kane) writes:
::::: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) sez that since our
::::: parents acted heterosexually, it is immoral to act homosexually:
MZ:
:::::: Perhaps you ought to take the trouble to think about it. If morality is
:::::: a universal constraint on permissible action of free rational agents,
:::::: any proposed course of action that directly contravenes the conditions
:::::: of your freedom, rationality, or agency, cannot be morally acceptable.
BK:
::::: You have an exceedingly poor grasp of causality.
MZ:
:::: Try to conceive a world wherein every dioecious creature deliberately
:::: chooses essentially sterile forms of intercourse on each occasion of
:::: sexual contact.
BK:
::: Would you care to calculate the probability of this happening?
MZ:
:: Consideration of probability is irrelevant because moral obligations
:: cannot be delegated. Otherwise you could excuse yourself from the
:: performance of any duty, arguing that a society of predominantly
:: conscientious men could -- and does -- suffer and sustain a small
:: proportion of parasites.
JJK:
: Welcome to the wonderful world of evolutionarily-stable strategies. If
: you'd just get away from your absolutist thinking, you'd see that EVERY
: population has its share of doves and hawks, its share of parasites and
: free-living organisms.
So?
JJK:
: I'm guessing that you haven't studied iterative systems much. Am I
: correct?
Not at all -- save for a bit of nonlinear analysis, a smidgeon of
fixpoint theory, a few years of classical and higher recursion, and a
smattering of other mathematical minutiae. Surely nothing that would
compare with your expertise.
MZ:
:::: Since such creatures must owe their provenance to an
:::: instance of fertile sexual contact,
BK:
::: Morality isn't about acting because of an "owing" to the events of the
::: past---it's about acting out of a sense of *present* respect for absolute
::: notions of "property", "property" being any number of things including
::: life, volition, ideas, and material possessions. In short, there is no
::: temporal notion to morality.
MZ:
:: Life, volition, and ideas are wholly dissimilar from any material
:: possessions, in arising and attaching to their owners irrespectively of
:: any social conventions, and in being physically inalienable therefrom.
JJB:
: Do you find yourself having to type with one hand when you use sentences
: and words like these?
:
: You DO seem to get off on being this pedantic.
As a point of fact, what I really get off on is presumptuous nitwits.
Thank you for obliging me with your presence.
MZ:
:: Furthermore, morality can and does arise before and independently of the
:: notion of material ownership, or any other social institution whatsoever,
:: though this fact may be difficult to grasp for someone happily inured to
:: the cupidity and rapaciousness of the Anglo-American tradition. And if
:: we incurred no moral obligation to the events of the past, retributive
:: justice would be nothing but a hollow farce.
JJB:
: You have a fucked up sense of causality. Morals FOLLOW. Morals are
: codifications of observed behaviors that worked (or didn't work) in the
: PAST.
Is that a fact, or just something your poor old mother told you instead
of a bedtime story? And would you care to adumbrate your pragmatic
precepts to a 400 pound gorilla intent on having his way with you just
because "might is right" has always worked for him in the PAST?
JJB:
: Most moral codes (and there are a multiplicity of them) are based on
: epidemiological requirements....the food we eat, the sex we have, etc.
Yes, eating and screwing always felt like an infectious disease to me, too.
JJB:
: To take morals and then reapply them absolutely and without modification
: to the present or the future betrays a serious unwillingness to think for
: one's self.
And to take your unsupported categorical dicta as the last word in
moral thinking would betray a streak of daring originality.
MZ:
:::: a world operating in accordance
:::: with the stated principle is logically impossible.
BK:
::: Exactly. So the chance of this happening is zero. Thus there is
::: no moral imperative for everyone to reproduce.
MZ:
:: Surely if there is a non-negative probability of an average primate
:: deciding to dedicate the rest of his days to sterile pursuits, there is
:: ipso facto a slight yet non-negative probability of the rest of his peers
:: deciding to follow suit. But since the universality of moral obligation
:: rules out all probabilistic consideration, there is no need for you to
:: concern yourself with a subject you evidently know nothing about.
JJB:
: Who ever said that moral obligation is universal? Moral obligations are
: an emergent phenomenon, and highly context-sensitive.
Nice terms. Too bad there is no argument to back them up.
MZ:
:::: The homosexual claims that his choice to bugger his partner in no way
:::: contravenes the possibility of conception of other creatures of their
:::: kind occurring elsewhere, on a different occasion, between some other
:::: human couple indulging in a disparate, fertile form of sex.
BK:
::: Right...(except that heterosexuals claim this, too...)
MZ:
:: Are you trying to show that if buggery is good for Boris and Natasha, it
:: must be equally good for Brian and Bruce? Then consider that Boris and
:: Natasha have the immediately available option of changing the venue for a
:: more fruitful outcome, without changing or dissolving their partnership.
:: Not so with Brian and Bruce.
JJB:
: Is it always the best strategy to be as fecund as one can? Can
: statistical phenomena be applied to an individual absolutely?
:
: I'll give you the answers: "not always", and "not always".
I was unaware of conducting this discussion in reference to an ulterior
motive. What ever happened to "Virtue is its own reward"?
MZ:
:::: But in choosing to act in the way he does, he wilfully construes himself
:::: as an anomaly to the principle in accordance with which such generative
:::: action would occur -- and therefore as a deliberate exception to the
:::: moral condition of his own genesis.
BK:
::: Nonsense. There are no moral conditions of being. Only moral actions.
MZ:
:: Somebody had to take a moral responsibility for his genesis, in a moral
:: action that constituted its moral condition.
JJB:
: Morality takes a back seat to reality.
Can I quote you on that?
MZ:
:::: Since morality admits of no exceptions, he is acting immorally.
BK:
::: No, since the premise is *NOT* true (the premise being that
::: there is a moral imperative for each individual to reproduce),
::: this doe *NOT* follow.
MZ:
:: In other words, you are pleading for exceptions to the common rule.
JJB:
: Hardly. Rather, depending on context, exceptions ARE the common rule.
: Perhaps the only one.
If everything were exceptional, there would be nothing to be excepted
from. Contradiction.
MZ:
:::: Our parents could not but (non possum non) have acted heterosexually
:::: so as to become our parents; hence it is immoral to act homosexually.
BK:
::: As I said, your notion of causality is all mixed up.
MZ:
:: Quoting your own words does not make them more authoritative.
BK:
: Pedantic sentences and stilted vocabulary doesn't work, either.
Works better than posts with the bulk of content squeezed into the .sig file.
: ---------------------------------------------------------------------
: "Very few beings really seek knowledge in this world. Few really
: ask. On the contrary, they try to wring from the unknown the answers
: they have already shaped in their own minds - justification,
: confirmation, forms of consolation without which they can't go on.
: To really ask is to open the door to a whirlwind. The answer may
: annihilate the question and the questioner." -- Anne Rice
: ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Zeleny
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:: quir...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz writes:
::: In that case, homosexual sex is not immoral. It does not prevent the
::: heterosexual creation of children. The continuing reproduction of
::: the human species is not based on the necessity for any *one* particular
::: person to become or make someone else become pregnant.
::: It is based on the requirement that a *sufficient* number of the members
::: of the human race become pregnant. There is no sign that homosexual sex,
::: contraception, the rhythm method or oral sex has dented this aggregate
::: total.
:: If morality is universal, whatever is *generally* morally incumbent
:: upon anyone, is ipso facto incumbent upon everyone. Ii particular, if
:: the action X is required as the condition of your existence, you are
:: not in a position to delegate that type of action to anyone else.
: Is the action of growing food necessary to your existence, Zeleny ?
Only in virtue of the selfsame social arrangement that directs me to
buy food in the grocery store more often than hunt and farm for it.
: Are you a farmer, Zeleny ?
No. But my occupation supports and sustains the farmers in virtue of
playing a productive part in the economy. You really ought to think
about Keynes some time -- and not just as an exemplary reformed
homosexual.
: It's blindingly obvious that Kant was making a comment about actions
: *against* those conditions necessary to the actor's existence being immoral.
: Under his view, therefore, actions designed to prevent the human race from
: producing enough children to continue, or actions designed to prevent
: the human race from producing enough food to feed itself are immoral. I
: agree, to some extent.
I see that you still have not bothered to read the book. Does it
gratify you to proffer opinions on the subject you know nothing about?
Last time it was evolution; before that it was constitutional law; now
it is Kantian ethics. What do you do for an encore -- deliver a
spontaneous lecture on cold fusion?
: This does *not* mean that there is a moral requirement for any
: *particular* person to breed or to farm, in the absence of any crisis
: requiring this. The fact that your existence required *some* people to
: breed in order that the human race survived does not mean that *everyone*
: is obliged to breed.
No one ever claimed otherwise.
: It means that everyone is obliged to not prevent sufficent others from
: breeding as to threaten extinction. In a similar vein, the fact that food
: needed to be grown to feed the human race does not obligate *everyone* to
: grow food. It obligates everyone to not take actions designed to prevent
: sufficient food being grown.
That is hardly sufficient to satisfy your duty. The obligation is to
act in a way conforming to a possible universal law consistent with the
production of food -- or the production of the next generation. In an
economy characterized by a division of labor, any productive occupation
satisfies this criterion. However the human nature does not admit of a
sexual division of labor. This is not just a biological fact grounded
in our dissimilarity from a society of ants; it is based in our moral
nature as autonomous agents capable of determining and fulfilling our
duty without any reference to our inclination. It matters not at all
whether this inclination be due to nature or to nurture; until and
unless you succeed in disregarding it in course of moral deliberation,
you will not be able to act freely, responsibly, and morally.
: Homosexuality and homosexuals, as with all non-fertile sex acts and
: members of the human race, threaten the existence of mankind not at all.
The same could be said about self-mutilators, zoophiles, and drug addicts.
None of it is relevant to moral merit.
: Your argument is, therefore, crap.
So you say.
::: Nope. Even I can tell that Kant is stating that *preventing*
::: heterosexual intercourse from occuring is immoral. Homosexuality
::: does not prevent heterosexual intercourse. The population curves
::: demonstrate this quite well.
:: Based on the evidence so far presented, I doubt that you can tell your
:: arse from a hole in the ground, much less discern what Kant is stated
:: without having perused the text. My interpretation has satisfied Kant
:: scholars. I am not interested in satisfying you.
: A politics professer I was fond of stated that the mark of a true master
: of a subject was that they could explain the basics to a layman and make
: them understand and enjoy it. The mark of a true academic was the *desire*
: to explain their particular subject to others.
Indeed.
: He commented that there were academics that were not masters of their
: subject, and that they were deadly boring at parties.
It is ever so telling that you should be concerned about performance at
parties more than about performance in the workplace.
: I suspect he'd consider you neither a master or an academic, but a
: posturing fool.
The best teacher I ever knew has taught me that no knowledge can be
imparted unto a pupil who has no humility. You are nearly as arrogant
and obstreperous as I was in my day. I would be a fool to try teaching
you philosophy before you have been thoroughly humiliated.
::: I mean, *think*. You're stating that *any* non-fertile sex act is
::: "immoral".
:: Any *essentially* non-fertile sex act is immoral. No scare quotes are
:: required. I am not about to assume the responsibility for your failure
:: to understand the modal distinctions. Feel free to be a moron on your
:: own time.
: That includes oral sex. Ever had a blow-job, Zeleny ?
Foreplay has no bearing on the productive potential of intercourse.
: That includes contraception. Ever worn a condom or had sex with someone
: on the Pill, Zeleny ?
Contraceptives do not exclude pregnancy. They merely lessen its likelihood.
: That includes masturbation. Ever jacked off, Zeleny ?
Masturbation can degenerate into a form of deleterious self-abuse. But
it is never a sex act in the relevant sense, since it does not involve
any choice of partners outside of your imagination. Still, if you want
to make a big deal out of wanking, be my guest.
: That includes wet dreams due to prolonged celibacy. Ever had a wet dream,
: Zeleny ?
Nocturnal emissions are hardly exemplary of deliberate action.
: Ever had sex at all, Zeleny ?
Funny you should mention -- I am told that I never will have sex again
unless I come to bed in fifteen minutes. I better cut this short.
::: How do homosexuals prevent heterosexual reproduction sufficient unto
::: sustaining the human race, that being the condition for those homosexuals
::: to appear ?
:: If your action is to proceed according to universal laws of your own
:: legislation, it cannot differ in kind from the laws that can arise
:: uniformly in a society of such free agents.
: Are you a farmer, Zeleny ?
:
: Surely it is a universal law that people require food. If *you* are not
: producing it, surely that is immoral, yes ?
See above.
:: (This is what Kant means by his transition to the formula of the Kingdom of
:: Ends.)
: I'm sorry, but I don't trust your interpretation. Since I am under the
: impression that you are a pseudo-intellectual poseur using philosophical
: garble to obscure bigotry, I prefer to ignore *your* assertions of what
: Kant meant.
Good for you. Read the book and figure it out for yourself.
:: Universal legislation of the maxim of homosexual intercourse is
:: incompatible with the genesis of men, and therefore incompatible with human
:: agency.
: I agree.
:
: No-one, however, mentioned "universal legislation of the maxim of
: homosexual intercourse".
See the Categorical Imperative, the formula of the law of nature.
: Universal legislation of the maxim of full-time study is incompatible
: with the existence of men, and therefore incompatible with human agency.
: Does this imply that being a university student is immoral ?
Students participate in the economy, just as Keynesian ditch-diggers.
::: Jesus, Zeleny, when your arguments are so crappy that even people who
::: haven't studied any philosophy can drive holes through them, it's time to
::: retire.
:: Your failure to study philosophy is the only reason you can sustain
:: your smug belief of having refuted my arguments.
: Your arguments, as shown above, fall to pieces under their own idiocy.
Better luck next time.
Richard Foy
Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>I have an aversion to saying the same thing more than twice to any
>single persom, without geting any signs of understanding in return.
>It makes me wonder about the intellectual honesty and adequacy of my
>interlocutor; and if I have no reason to regard him as anything other
>than a mendacious moron, the conversation must come to an end. So
>please help me out here.
I will try though I am busting in here.
Discussions on subejcts such as homosexuality, abortion etc., no
matter who carefully crafted the phrases and the words, are never
intellectual debates. They are always emotional expressions, no
matter who deeply the emotions are buried. Thus it is futile to
argue intellectually on either side of these arguments.
--
"The anti-Establishment Establishment is like the Internet, for,
by definition, it has no leaders, no membership directory and no
central philosophy." --Los Angeles Times December 4, 1994
Richard Foy ftp://ftp/netcom.com/pub/rf/rfoy/home.html
Michael Zeleny
rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes:
: In article <3j7uu9$7...@saba.info.ucla.edu>,
: Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
:: I have an aversion to saying the same thing more than twice to any
:: single persom, without geting any signs of understanding in return.
:: It makes me wonder about the intellectual honesty and adequacy of my
:: interlocutor; and if I have no reason to regard him as anything other
:: than a mendacious moron, the conversation must come to an end. So
:: please help me out here.
: I will try though I am busting in here.
Your intervention is welcome.
: Discussions on subejcts such as homosexuality, abortion etc., no
: matter who carefully crafted the phrases and the words, are never
: intellectual debates. They are always emotional expressions, no
: matter who deeply the emotions are buried. Thus it is futile to
: argue intellectually on either side of these arguments.
What alternative to dispassionate discussion do you prefer?
: --
: "The anti-Establishment Establishment is like the Internet, for,
: by definition, it has no leaders, no membership directory and no
: central philosophy." --Los Angeles Times December 4, 1994
:
: Richard Foy ftp://ftp/netcom.com/pub/rf/rfoy/home.html
cordially, don't
Caitlin Mackay Shaw
Hypothetical situation: lesbian couple has a supply of frozen sperm.
Every morning they get up and do the turkey-baster thing. Is it moral
or immoral for them to have sex?
I say it's amoral -- completely irrelevent to the question of the
morality of reproduction. This is because **sex and procreation are not
intrinsically linked** in this example. For the above women, sex has as
much to do with children as music does.
Brian Kane
editors to tears, Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
:In article <3j8772$j...@news.bu.edu> ka...@buast7.bu.edu (Brian Kane) writes:
::Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) attempts to defend the
::morality of contraception with a probabilistic argument:
:::Correction -- unlike the ongoing sexual perusal of your orifices, normal
:::means of contraception do not prevent conception, but merely lessen its
:::natural likelihood, in view of the ever-present, non-negligible chance of
:::pregnancy remaining under all but the unjustifiably debilitating surgical
:::means of birth control.
:Note that in question is the physical possibility of a proximate
:outcome of your own action.
In that case, we could assign an *extremely* small but nonetheless non-zero
probability to the gamete produced or available during an act of homosexual
intercourse somehow finding itself conceiving a zygote with a gamete of the
opposite gender.
Historical case in point (just for a chuckle, Misha): during the American
Civil War, a Confederate soldier was shot through the testes during a battle
(one at Bull Run?), the bullet eventually stopping in the womb of a woman hiding
in a nearby house. The woman became pregnant, although she claimed she was
a virgin. The doctor who removed the bullet from her abdomen had noted that
there was testicular tissue next to it. Seems very unlikely, but apparently
it happened.
Now, imagine that a similar scenario happens. This time a gay-hating burglar
attempting a robbery in an apartment in a gay ghetto accidentally comes upon
a gay male couple (Mikhail and Vitaly) engaged in anal intercourse on their
luxurious exposed-wood floor. The enraged robber decides that his ego is more
important than his wallet and thus takes careful aim and castrates the
insertive partner (Vitaly) with his bullet, the bullet flying through the floor
into the apartment below, carrying with it spermatozoa and testicular tissue.
The bullet just happens to come to rest in the womb of the boys' best friend,
Valentina, who lives directly below them, served as maid of honor in their
wedding, and has incidentally agreed to be a surrogate mother to their
child(ren) one day. Valentina becomes pregnant with Vitaly's child, the
sperm-half of which was meant to be deposited in Mikhail's rectum, or
wherever Mikhail liked it best.
In light of the very nonexistence of IMPOSSIBILITY of any proximate outcome of
ones own actions, and indeed the false distinction between the treatment of
proximate and eventual (indirect) outcomes, I then went on to say that this
probabilistic notion seems OK to Misha when in regard to ones own actions,
but not OK in regard to ceding actions to others---
::Interesting. This opinion flies in the face of your own moralistic
::philosophy:
::=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
::From: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
::Subject: Re: Bigots Target
::Date: 3 Mar 1995 02:00:34 GMT
::Message-ID: <3j5t82$m...@saba.info.ucla.edu>
::
::Consideration of probability is irrelevant because moral obligations
::cannot be delegated. Otherwise you could excuse yourself from the
::performance of any duty, arguing that a society of predominantly
::conscientious men could -- and does -- suffer and sustain a small
::proportion of parasites.
::
::Surely if there is a non-negative probability of an average primate
::deciding to dedicate the rest of his days to sterile pursuits, there is
::ipso facto a slight yet non-negative probability of the rest of his peers
::deciding to follow suit. But since the universality of moral obligation
::rules out all probabilistic consideration, there is no need for you to
::concern yourself with a subject you evidently know nothing about.
::=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
:Note that this is a matter of relying on the possibility of action of
:other autonomous agents -- as I clearly specified by reference to the
:impossibility of delegation.
I presume you consider "impossibility of delegation" as a premise to
your argument. (Forgive me if in a fit of boredom or pedantophobia
I inadvertantly skimmed by any of your arguments stating otherwise.)
But since it is not a moral imperative for *each* person to reproduce
(the fact that not every member of the species has to reproduce to
ensure species survival is a UNIVERSAL TRUTH), you are begging the
question.
But let's just go along with your "duty" theory, just to amuse you,
Misha. Certainly you are right that until recently, every sexual
being "owed" their state of being to heterosexual intercourse. Now,
though, a considerable number of people are the products of in vitro
fertilization.
Is there a similar duty for those conceived in vitro to make their
own baby in vitro? In other words, do the circumstances of conception
factor into your theory of "moral duty"?
If they don't, then you have to admit that gay men and lesbians who
conceive a child with one of their gametes have fulfilled their
duties to reproduce.
And what of celibate people, regardless of sexual orientation
or preference? Are they degenerate reprobates?
Michael Zeleny
: Once again proving that as a putative author, he would bore
: editors to tears, Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
:: In article <3j8772$j...@news.bu.edu> ka...@buast7.bu.edu (Brian Kane) writes:
::: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) attempts to defend the
::: morality of contraception with a probabilistic argument:
:::: Correction -- unlike the ongoing sexual perusal of your orifices, normal
:::: means of contraception do not prevent conception, but merely lessen its
:::: natural likelihood, in view of the ever-present, non-negligible chance of
:::: pregnancy remaining under all but the unjustifiably debilitating surgical
:::: means of birth control.
:: Note that in question is the physical possibility of a proximate
:: outcome of your own action.
: In that case, we could assign an *extremely* small but nonetheless non-zero
: probability to the gamete produced or available during an act of homosexual
: intercourse somehow finding itself conceiving a zygote with a gamete of the
: opposite gender.
You fail to take into account the concept of proximate outcome.
: Historical case in point (just for a chuckle, Misha): during the American
: Civil War, a Confederate soldier was shot through the testes during a battle
: (one at Bull Run?), the bullet eventually stopping in the womb of a woman
: hiding in a nearby house. The woman became pregnant, although she claimed
: she was a virgin. The doctor who removed the bullet from her abdomen had
: noted that there was testicular tissue next to it. Seems very unlikely,
: but apparently it happened.
Why am I not surprised to see you base your moral casuistry on Ann Landers?
: Now, imagine that a similar scenario happens. This time a gay-hating burglar
: attempting a robbery in an apartment in a gay ghetto accidentally comes upon
: a gay male couple (Mikhail and Vitaly) engaged in anal intercourse on their
: luxurious exposed-wood floor. The enraged robber decides that his ego is
: more important than his wallet and thus takes careful aim and castrates the
: insertive partner (Vitaly) with his bullet, the bullet flying through the
: floor into the apartment below, carrying with it spermatozoa and testicular
: tissue. The bullet just happens to come to rest in the womb of the boys'
: best friend, Valentina, who lives directly below them, served as maid of
: honor in their wedding, and has incidentally agreed to be a surrogate mother
: to their child(ren) one day. Valentina becomes pregnant with Vitaly's child,
: the sperm-half of which was meant to be deposited in Mikhail's rectum, or
: wherever Mikhail liked it best.
The moral depravity of an action cannot be vitiated by the possibility
of a happy accident, any more than its probity can be subverted by an
unforeseeable disaster. The possibility of conception, as a natural
issue of heterosexual intercourse, necessarily enters into the moral
determination of its maxims, which depend in their identity on the
direction of will and the laws of nature. You might as well have
adduced the non-zero probability of your partner's arse metamorphosing
into a fully functional uterus as a consequence of a random quantum
effect -- for neither outcome enjoys an intrinsic connection to the
maxim of buggery.
Note that the doctrine of double effect need not be invoked in order
to draw the distinction between distal and proximate outcomes, in so
far as the latter may be distinguisged by reference to the intentional
and nomological aspects of agency. Consequently, if the putatively
meritorous outcome of your action essentially depends on somebody
else's intentional intervention, or even the constancy of your own
subsequent resolve, it is ipso facto distal and morally irrelevant.
: In light of the very nonexistence of IMPOSSIBILITY of any proximate outcome
It is not a premiss, but a conclusion that follows from the imputation
of freedom to rational agents. You may catch up with the argument by
perusing _The Metaphysics of Morals_, 226-7/52.
: But since it is not a moral imperative for *each* person to reproduce
: (the fact that not every member of the species has to reproduce to
: ensure species survival is a UNIVERSAL TRUTH), you are begging the
: question.
By similar reasoning, is not a moral imperative for *each* person to
produce anything at all, in so far as the fact that not every member
of the species has to produce to ensure species survival may be
another UNIVERSAL TRUTH. Accordingly, you should feel free to plant
yourself on your arse and act (by failing to act) upon the maxim of
sloth. Better yet, note that the proper counterpart of buggery is the
toil of Sisyphus, rather than idleness.
: But let's just go along with your "duty" theory, just to amuse you,
: Misha. Certainly you are right that until recently, every sexual
: being "owed" their state of being to heterosexual intercourse. Now,
: though, a considerable number of people are the products of in vitro
: fertilization.
:
: Is there a similar duty for those conceived in vitro to make their
: own baby in vitro? In other words, do the circumstances of conception
: factor into your theory of "moral duty"?
This is an interesting question, -- is there ever a good reason to
distinguish the duties of Macduff, "being of no woman born", from the
duties of young Siward, "born of woman"? Notwithstanding the radical
divergence of their success in confronting Macbeth, the difference in
their genesis does not result in a disparity in their powers; and Kant
is clearly committed to the view that all rational agents must be be
bound by the same rules. Nevertheless, different rational agents may
be subject to diverse physical limitations, each of which entails
multifarious restrictions on their moral maxims. For instance, it is
natural to demand that the maxim of action willed by a mortal agent,
should take into consideration the empirical fact of his mortality;
and this in turn would necessitate a relativization of the pure moral
law envisaged by Kant to the contingent empirical circumstances of his
peculiar condition. But even though a properly universalized maxim of
homosexual comportment may be compatible with the provenance of a test
tube baby, it would cause a contradiction of will by dint of remaining
incompatible with conception as a proximate outcome of the act.
It is a commonplace of contemporary philosophy that certain empirical
propositions pertaining to the structural identity of objects, are
thought of as necessary. ("Water is H_2O.") Thus one's genetic
origin is said to be an essential property of oneself -- so that any
given person necesssarily originates from the particular gametes that
came together to form a zygote at the moment of his conception. But
it is not commonly noted that this thesis presupposes the necessity of
action-type, as well as the necessity of its components -- for surely
the essences of the dramatis personae and their issue do not exhaust
the essential nature of the originary proceedings. And so it appears
to follow that the agent's willing through the maxim of his action, as
if it were a universal law of nature, must avoid all logical conflict
with the actual (and thus essential to him) nature of his begetting.
In particular, it would seem most unbecoming if a person owing his
existence to a petri dish stuck inside of an incubator, were to will
an act of technoclastic Luddism. Similarly, each man has an option of
willing that the natural manner of future conception should come to be
replaced by an alternative process. Since sexual reproduction need
not depend on a sexual act, if Brian were to stick a condom on before
his night of passion with Bruce, he could use it to fertilize any egg
which might be handy, either by schlepping it to the incubator for an
in vitro encounter with another gamete, or by going downstairs for in
vivo fertilization of his sister Brenda through cunning deployment of
a turkey-baster. But this imaginative deployment of a rubber would
fail to exonerate him for the simple reason of falling outside of the
strict purview of his proximate willing. For the maxim of Brian's
action can subsume only the immediate bringing about of events that
are necessarily connected therewith; his collateral intentions not
being so connected, must perforce be swept away along with the rest of
his ultimate goals. So we may imagine him conscientiously chanting
his mantra of subsequent fertilization throughout the duration of his
sheathed pedication of his pathic, only to stumble and spill his sperm
whilst traipsing to its ultimate destination. In this case, Brian's
meritorous attempt to further his lineage is clearly disconnected from
the meretriciousness of his prior congress with his hapless catamite;
and the possibility of such discontinuity conclusively demonstrates
the moral independence of the two acts.
In other words, though the ejaculate deposited in Bruce's rectum may
be retrieved and reused for subsequent nonorthogenital conception in
vivo or artificial conception in vitro, these acts would lack the
requisite essential voluntary and nomological connection with the
homosexual act as such. Hence they could be willed through a "fertile
homosexual maxim" as part and parcel of naturally sterile intercourse,
for the same reason that the goal of rendering oneself bulletproof
cannot be willed through a maxim authorizing one to aim and fire a .45
Colt at one's naked breast. In short, Brian's ambitious attempt to
exercise his homosexual inclinations in a morally unexceptionable
fashion founders on his inability to connect the intrinsic nature of
buggery with the eventuation of conception, and could be fulfilled
only by means of thoroughgoing genetic and biological modification of
Bruce, involving the implantation of a fully functioning uterus and
ovaries within his commodious rectum.
: If they don't, then you have to admit that gay men and lesbians who
: conceive a child with one of their gametes have fulfilled their
: duties to reproduce.
Once again, there is no duty to reproduce. There is only a duty not
to prevent reproduction by an intrinsic aspect of your sexuality.
: And what of celibate people, regardless of sexual orientation
: or preference? Are they degenerate reprobates?
No more and no less so than slothful lotus-eaters.
: --
: Brian Kane~~~Astroboy~~~kane@{buast1,bu-ast,buast7,protostar}.bu.edu
: "The altar boy's on fire!" Mary Lorson _Bring It Down_ (1993)
: "Those dudes up in the UFO described the truth as a yellow lifeboat"
cordially, don't
Kyle Elisabeth Overstreet
: : That presumes that the maxim demonstrated by that choice is that "sexual
: : nature is to be fulfilled in sodomy", or some such. If the maxim to which
: : one is following is "one must act in accordance with ones sexual nature,
: : if in doing so one does not violate the free agency of another", then the
: : Categorical Imperative doesn't apply. If my parents had violated this
: : principle, I would not have been born, because my parents weren't homosexual.
: You are forgetting that the only morally relevant factors for the
: determination of duty in an empirically given setting are autonomy,
: agency, and rationality. Desires are explicitly enjoined from playing
: a constitutive role therein, on pain of vitiating autonomy. See the
: first part of the Groundwork for more details.
This exemplifies my suspicion of this kind of normative ethics. If,
frankly, I'm unable to reliably act ethically without having read the
Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, ethical action is a
near-impossibility for most.
I do intend to read the Groundwork, and perhaps reread SELECTIONS of the
Metaphysic itself (I'm very busy, I work full time and I stopped studying
philosophy when I left college...), but the nature of this discussion has
gone to reinforce my moral intuitionism; it is evident that normative
ethics are always held up to an extant moral intuition which is the
actual foundation for moral choice.
: : In a sense, the CI makes epistemological assumptions that Kant himself
: : disallowed.
: You have not shown that.
Perhaps I will essay such a demonstration. But as a prelude to it, I
offer that the ontology of "sexual powers" exceeds the boundaries of
practical knowledge, and is in fact a teleological claim. Otherwise, I
agree that I have not shown that. I suggested it, and I suggest it again.
: : But you are much too busy grinding an axe to be of much use for generating
: : light on Kant.
: On the contrary, my axe is much duller than Manny's razor-sharp
: hatchet -- after all, I am not the one proposing castration as the
: just punishment for buggery.
Let's be grateful for small wonders.
Michael Zeleny
: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
::: That presumes that the maxim demonstrated by that choice is that "sexual
::: nature is to be fulfilled in sodomy", or some such. If the maxim to which
::: one is following is "one must act in accordance with ones sexual nature,
::: if in doing so one does not violate the free agency of another", then the
::: Categorical Imperative doesn't apply. If my parents had violated this
::: principle, I would not have been born, because my parents weren't homosexual.
:: You are forgetting that the only morally relevant factors for the
:: determination of duty in an empirically given setting are autonomy,
:: agency, and rationality. Desires are explicitly enjoined from playing
:: a constitutive role therein, on pain of vitiating autonomy. See the
:: first part of the Groundwork for more details.
: This exemplifies my suspicion of this kind of normative ethics. If,
: frankly, I'm unable to reliably act ethically without having read the
: Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, ethical action is a
: near-impossibility for most.
This is silly. "If, frankly, I'm unable to reliably count my change
and balance my checkbook without having studied arithmetic, economical
action is a near-impossibility for most." I do this in-between writing
one book, editing two other books, organizing a non-profit foundation
presently charged with typesetting two mathematical journals, taking
care of a dozen graduate course incompletes, maintaining three Italian
motorcycles, bringing up a 100 pound puppy, and having a private life.
So please forgive me if I make a textual reference to a classic source
in lieu of proffering an extended explanation of elementary matters to
someone who appears capable of doing her own research.
: I do intend to read the Groundwork, and perhaps reread SELECTIONS of the
: Metaphysic itself (I'm very busy, I work full time and I stopped studying
: philosophy when I left college...), but the nature of this discussion has
: gone to reinforce my moral intuitionism; it is evident that normative
: ethics are always held up to an extant moral intuition which is the
: actual foundation for moral choice.
No, it is not. Certainly nothing that transpired in this discussion
constitutes evidence supporting your claim.
::: In a sense, the CI makes epistemological assumptions that Kant himself
::: disallowed.
:: You have not shown that.
: Perhaps I will essay such a demonstration. But as a prelude to it, I
: offer that the ontology of "sexual powers" exceeds the boundaries of
: practical knowledge, and is in fact a teleological claim. Otherwise, I
: agree that I have not shown that. I suggested it, and I suggest it again.
So what? Teleology and intentionality are regarded as irreducible to
efficient causation and indispensable to scientific explanation by some
of the best modern thinkers in evolutionary biology and philosophy of
mind. That makes ethics dependent on science. I see no harm and much
good in this situation, especially since the reciprocal dependence has
long been recognized by many scientists.
::: But you are much too busy grinding an axe to be of much use for generating
::: light on Kant.
:: On the contrary, my axe is much duller than Manny's razor-sharp
:: hatchet -- after all, I am not the one proposing castration as the
:: just punishment for buggery.
: Let's be grateful for small wonders.
Civil discourse is one among many.
Michael Zeleny
: On 28 Feb 1995, Michael Zeleny wrote:
:: Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
:: In other words, Gene Ward Smith is objecting to outspoken opposition
:: to his outspoken sexual perversion.
: Excuse me, Pervert, but I am not the one defending what I call perversion,
: you are the one defending and admitting to what you (if you were honest)
: would be compelled to call sexual perversion.
You are not excused, fonkin. If you are too fatuous to comprehend the
simple moral and modal difference between heterosexual contraception
and homosexual buggery, it is your own problem. Do not blame the world
for your pathetic intellectual handicap.
: So knock off the "perversion" claims, Pervert.
So sorry, I forgot my folklore --
"The inverts
(a word preferred by homosexuals to perverts)
attempt to win converts."
Have it your own way. Repeatedly.
: --
: Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/University of Toledo
: gsm...@lab1.utoledo.edu
Isn't it about time for you to invite me to fuck my ass with broken
glass? Isn't it funny how even a screaming rimadonna will use anal
penetration of a man as a term for abject humiliation?
Richard Foy
Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>: I will try though I am busting in here.
>
>Your intervention is welcome.
Thanks.
>
>: Discussions on subejcts such as homosexuality, abortion etc., no
>: matter who carefully crafted the phrases and the words, are never
>: intellectual debates. They are always emotional expressions, no
>: matter who deeply the emotions are buried. Thus it is futile to
>: argue intellectually on either side of these arguments.
>
>What alternative to dispassionate discussion do you prefer?
Actually I probably don't "prefer" other forms. I too tend to fool
myself that intellectual discussion can be effective on topics such
as the above.
However, when I can step back from the emotional issues, I know that
the best way of discussing them is to discuss the emotions involved
rather than the intellectual rationalizatiosn we have that support
the emotional aspects.
Michael Zeleny
: Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
::: I will try though I am busting in here.
:: Your intervention is welcome.
: Thanks.
::: Discussions on subejcts such as homosexuality, abortion etc., no
::: matter who carefully crafted the phrases and the words, are never
::: intellectual debates. They are always emotional expressions, no
::: matter who deeply the emotions are buried. Thus it is futile to
::: argue intellectually on either side of these arguments.
:: What alternative to dispassionate discussion do you prefer?
: Actually I probably don't "prefer" other forms. I too tend to fool
: myself that intellectual discussion can be effective on topics such
: as the above.
If you are implying the impossibility of converting inverts through
rational appeal, my experience differs. While I find it hard to
motivate men with appeals to utilitarian considerations, Platonic
Ideas work very well indeed.
: However, when I can step back from the emotional issues, I know that
: the best way of discussing them is to discuss the emotions involved
: rather than the intellectual rationalizatiosn we have that support
: the emotional aspects.
Are desires considered to be emotions, or are they prior thereto?
Do you ever desire unwarranted sudden demise of your neighbor?
If so, what do you do about it?
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
>: Right...(except that heterosexuals claim this, too...)
>Are you trying to show that if buggery is good for Boris and Natasha, it
>must be equally good for Brian and Bruce? Then consider that Boris and
>Natasha have the immediately available option of changing the venue for a
>more fruitful outcome, without changing or dissolving their partnership.
>Not so with Brian and Bruce.
Alas, you have just contradicted yourself.
I requote your words:
"So Kant tells you that, since you owe your very provenance as an agent
to a single fertile act of sexual intercourse, any necessarily infertile form
of sexual intercourse cannot be willed to be an instance of a lawlike choice,
in so far as its instantiation at the moment of your conception would have
preempted your biological existence as a necessary condition of your current
moral deliberation."
And to be even clearer:
"Any *essentially* non-fertile sex act is immoral."
Anal sex is an essentially non-fertile sex act, whether between male and
male, male and female, or even female and female. Because of this, and since,
if your parents had decided to indulge in this instead of PiV sex at the
moment of your conception (*), by your own words *all* anal sex must be
immoral.
Anal sex is a sexual act unto itself, just like oral sex or mutual
masturbation. They cannot be considered "foreplay" if they lead to (male)
orgasm.
By your own logic, Bruce and Natasha (or even Michael and whoever might
be unlucky enough to occupy the same bed) are acting "immorally" if Bruce
ejaculates anywhere but in Natasha's vagina.
Care to explain why you contradicted yourself, Zeleny ?
- Tony Q.
(*) "Your" being a generic term derived from Michael's post as above. If
used as a personal term, referring specifically to Michael, I confess that
it may very well be possible that he results from anal sex.
---
Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand (email for phone no)
"A cripple taught me how to dance, a blind man taught me how to see.
A fallen angel taught me how to fly, and a prisoner taught me to be free."
- Simple Image.
Michael Zeleny
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:: ka...@buast7.bu.edu (Brian Kane) writes:
::: Right...(except that heterosexuals claim this, too...)
:: Are you trying to show that if buggery is good for Boris and Natasha, it
:: must be equally good for Brian and Bruce? Then consider that Boris and
:: Natasha have the immediately available option of changing the venue for a
:: more fruitful outcome, without changing or dissolving their partnership.
:: Not so with Brian and Bruce.
: Alas, you have just contradicted yourself.
Have I?
: I requote your words:
:
: "So Kant tells you that, since you owe your very provenance as an agent
: to a single fertile act of sexual intercourse, any necessarily infertile form
: of sexual intercourse cannot be willed to be an instance of a lawlike choice,
: in so far as its instantiation at the moment of your conception would have
: preempted your biological existence as a necessary condition of your current
: moral deliberation."
:
: And to be even clearer:
:
: "Any *essentially* non-fertile sex act is immoral."
I stand by that claim.
: Anal sex is an essentially non-fertile sex act, whether between male and
: male, male and female, or even female and female. Because of this, and since,
: if your parents had decided to indulge in this instead of PiV sex at the
: moment of your conception (*), by your own words *all* anal sex must be
: immoral.
Correct -- anal sex being identified with ejaculation in the anus.
: Anal sex is a sexual act unto itself, just like oral sex or mutual
: masturbation. They cannot be considered "foreplay" if they lead to (male)
: orgasm.
Lovely. Erin instructs me to inquire whether or not such acts can be
considered foreplay if they lead to female orgasm only.
: By your own logic, Bruce and Natasha (or even Michael and whoever might
: be unlucky enough to occupy the same bed) are acting "immorally" if Bruce
: ejaculates anywhere but in Natasha's vagina.
Correct -- though that would be Boris and Natasha, my culturally
challenged antipodean friend. But consider how much more depraved
it would have been to choose a partner in a way that denied one the
option of rectifying his erroneous choice of sexual venue.
: Care to explain why you contradicted yourself, Zeleny ?
What contradiction do you have in mind? You have just described the
standard Jewish account of what constitutes permissible sex between
man and wife -- it does not matter where you get started, as long as
you finish in the right place. What are you, some kind of Judeophobe?
: - Tony Q.
:
: (*) "Your" being a generic term derived from Michael's post as above. If
: used as a personal term, referring specifically to Michael, I confess that
: it may very well be possible that he results from anal sex.
I am getting confused -- are you suggesting that anal sex is not
essentially sterile after all? Have you been making yourself
available for experiments to that end?
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
> quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:
>: Is the action of growing food necessary to your existence, Zeleny ?
>Only in virtue of the selfsame social arrangement that directs me to
>buy food in the grocery store more often than hunt and farm for it.
I'm sorry, but you yourself have ruled out social arrangements as a means
of satisfying these moral requirements.
I quote:
"Life, volition, and ideas are wholly dissimilar from any material
possessions, in arising and attaching to their owners irrespectively of
any social conventions, and in being physically inalienable therefrom.
Furthermore, morality can and does arise before and independently of the
notion of material ownership, or any other social institution whatsoever,
though this fact may be difficult to grasp for someone happily inured to
the cupidity and rapaciousness of the Anglo-American tradition."
If morality arises before social institutions such as capitalist trade,
then you must consider the morality of not farming sans a capitalist society.
If this morality is to be altered by the fact of a capitalist society,
meaning that you no longer are obligated to provide food for yourself and
the next generation due to the existance of farmers, then you cannot hold
that the morality of unfertile sex cannot equally be altered due to the
existance of people willing and able to breed far in excess of replacement
numbers.
One or the other, Zeleny.
Are gays immoral for not having PiV sex in a world full of parents ?
Are you moral despite foisting the obligation to feed yourself onto
others ?
>: Are you a farmer, Zeleny ?
>No. But my occupation supports and sustains the farmers in virtue of
>playing a productive part in the economy.
Really ?
I thought you were a philosophy student.
Should we get a farmer's opinion as to the "support" and "sustainance"
they get from philosophy students ?
If all the philosophy students died tomorrow, what would the effect on
food production be ? If the answer is "none", then you do not participate
in providing food, as you are morally obligated to.
And if you're not a philosophy student, do *please* tell us what you
really are. We'd love to know how a janitor got net access.
>I see that you still have not bothered to read the book. Does it
>gratify you to proffer opinions on the subject you know nothing about?
>Last time it was evolution; before that it was constitutional law; now
>it is Kantian ethics. What do you do for an encore -- deliver a
>spontaneous lecture on cold fusion?
Done that already.
Commented on possible high explosive lenses triggering fusion reactions.
Somebody on sci.military did a thesis on it.
Better to know a little on many subjects, and be able to use it, than to
know a lot about one, and to use it only as a cover for bigotry, hmm ?
>: This does *not* mean that there is a moral requirement for any
>: *particular* person to breed or to farm, in the absence of any crisis
>: requiring this. The fact that your existence required *some* people to
>: breed in order that the human race survived does not mean that *everyone*
>: is obliged to breed.
>No one ever claimed otherwise.
Hold that thought...
>: It means that everyone is obliged to not prevent sufficent others from
>: breeding as to threaten extinction. In a similar vein, the fact that food
>: needed to be grown to feed the human race does not obligate *everyone* to
>: grow food. It obligates everyone to not take actions designed to prevent
>: sufficient food being grown.
>That is hardly sufficient to satisfy your duty.
You just agreed that *everyone* is not abliged to breed. In the absence
of a population crisis, you just agreed that there was no obligation for
a *particular* person to breed.
>The obligation is to act in a way conforming to a possible universal law
>consistent with the production of food -- or the production of the next
>generation.
Uh-huh. They're called "don't stop the farmers from growing food" and
"don't stop your neighbours from producing sufficient offspring".
Remember ? You agreed that there was no obligation that *everyone*
breed.
>In an economy characterized by a division of labor, any productive
>occupation satisfies this criterion.
I note the word "economy", the result of human economic choices. Hold
that thought...
>However the human nature does not admit of a sexual division of labor.
Pardon me, but we are not discussing "human nature" in the comparison
of these analogues. The correct thing to address is "the result of human
reproductive choices".
The result of current human economic choices is a society in which
sufficient food is grown to continue the human race. You have said, as I
understand it, that the mere participation in this is sufficient to
satisfy the moral obligation to provide food.
The result of current human reproductive choices is a society in which
sufficient children are produced to continue the human race. Therefore, the
mere participation in these choices, such as deciding not to produce one's
own but equally not to prevent others from producing children, is sufficient
to satisfy the moral obligation to provide children.
>: Homosexuality and homosexuals, as with all non-fertile sex acts and
>: members of the human race, threaten the existence of mankind not at all.
>The same could be said about self-mutilators, zoophiles, and drug addicts.
That is correct. So ?
>: He commented that there were academics that were not masters of their
>: subject, and that they were deadly boring at parties.
>It is ever so telling that you should be concerned about performance at
>parties more than about performance in the workplace.
I don't have to worry about performance in the workplace.
The head of the Ministry I'm on contract to, one of the ten senior civil
servants in the entire country, has complimented me on my performance, is
willing to put this in writing, wants to meet with me on Thursday so I can
recommend a course of action on the current project, and has received a
recommendation from my boss that the Ministry attempt to retain me permanently.
What *do* you do for a living, Zeleny ?
>The best teacher I ever knew has taught me that no knowledge can be
>imparted unto a pupil who has no humility. You are nearly as arrogant
>and obstreperous as I was in my day. I would be a fool to try teaching
>you philosophy before you have been thoroughly humiliated.
I'd be a fool to pay for a self-deceitful liar as a teacher.
>: That includes oral sex. Ever had a blow-job, Zeleny ?
>Foreplay has no bearing on the productive potential of intercourse.
"Blow-job" usually refers to a sexual act in and of itself, one
continued to orgasm.
Those of us who have had sex are aware that males tend to have problems
retaining erections immediately after ejaculation.
>: That includes contraception. Ever worn a condom or had sex with someone
>: on the Pill, Zeleny ?
>Contraceptives do not exclude pregnancy. They merely lessen its likelihood.
Are you trying to tell us that sex under contraceptives is not an
"essentially infertile sexual act" ?
One also points out that if everyone had sex under contraception, it is
highly unlikely that the human race would survive. You are therefore
failing to accept your duty to reproduce the species by foisting the burden
off on those couples not using contraception.
How immoral !
>: That includes masturbation. Ever jacked off, Zeleny ?
>Masturbation can degenerate into a form of deleterious self-abuse. But
>it is never a sex act in the relevant sense, since it does not involve
>any choice of partners outside of your imagination.
Ever been jacked off, Zeleny ?
>: That includes wet dreams due to prolonged celibacy. Ever had a wet dream,
>: Zeleny ?
>Nocturnal emissions are hardly exemplary of deliberate action.
Prolonged celibacy is a conscious choice. You could, for example, rape
whenever you get the urge. I can testify from experience that the rate of
nocturnal emissions varies considerably depending on one's sex life.
Ever had a wet dream while celibate, Zeleny ?
>: Ever had sex at all, Zeleny ?
>Funny you should mention -- I am told that I never will have sex again
>unless I come to bed in fifteen minutes. I better cut this short.
Remember, wanking's probably a no-no. Tell yourself to get lost.
>: Universal legislation of the maxim of full-time study is incompatible
>: with the existence of men, and therefore incompatible with human agency.
>: Does this imply that being a university student is immoral ?
>Students participate in the economy, just as Keynesian ditch-diggers.
Sorry. In your own words, "Furthermore, morality can and does arise
before and independently of the notion of material ownership, or any other
social institution whatsoever [...]".
If you are now claiming that your moral obligation to produce food is
altered to supporting others who produce food because of existing social
circumstances, the capitalist economy, equally a homosexual's moral
obligation to produce and raise children is altered to supporting others
who produce and raise children because of existing social circumstances,
a sufficient birth rate.
Homosexuals who pay taxes, babysit, or work at a productive job support
the raising of children at least as much as students support farmers.
>: Your arguments, as shown above, fall to pieces under their own idiocy.
>Better luck next time.
*Crash* <tinkle tinkle tinkle>
- Tony Q.
Erin Y. Zhu
> By your own logic, Bruce and Natasha (or even Michael and whoever might
>be unlucky enough to occupy the same bed)
You know, Tony, normally I prefer to stay out of Michael's various
Usenet forays, since I like to give my partner the freedom to do his
own thinking, writing, and getting in and out of verbal tangles, but
somehow some people manage to get a little too far in the heat of, ah,
shall we say, "verbal engagements". Now it's very well and dandy to
have philosophical differences with Michael; indeed it would be rather
surprising if one did not, given the number of his philosophical and
other convictions. But I do not appreciate my bed, and my own person,
being gratuitiously dragged bodily into a discussion just so you could
vent a bit of your no-doubt well-stocked spleen.
>are acting "immorally" if Bruce ejaculates anywhere but in Natasha's vagina.
Just for the record, Michael ejaculates where he pleases, and his partner
likes to be accomodating.
>- Tony Q.
> (*) "Your" being a generic term derived from Michael's post as above. If
>used as a personal term, referring specifically to Michael, I confess that
>it may very well be possible that he results from anal sex.
You are doing far too good a job of bringing to mind the last resorts
of a drowning man. I recommend taking it easy on those straws.
--Erin
Richard Foy
Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>In article <rfoyD4y...@netcom.com> rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes:
>If you are implying the impossibility of converting inverts through
>rational appeal, my experience differs. While I find it hard to
>motivate men with appeals to utilitarian considerations, Platonic
>Ideas work very well indeed.
I probably agree with what you are saying, but I am not exacly sure
the type of thing you mean.
>
>: However, when I can step back from the emotional issues, I know that
>: the best way of discussing them is to discuss the emotions involved
>: rather than the intellectual rationalizatiosn we have that support
>: the emotional aspects.
>
>Are desires considered to be emotions, or are they prior thereto?
>Do you ever desire unwarranted sudden demise of your neighbor?
>If so, what do you do about it?
I would say that desires and emotions are often very clsoely
connected. However, the way I would use them, and considering your
example, I would say that desires are a result of emotions.
In your example, it would seem to me that your "desire" to kill your
neighbor results from some emotion, perhaps you are "angry" at him
because he makes too much noise, or you are "afraid" of him becasue
he has threatened you, or you "lust" for his wife and want him out of
the way.
--
"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established
authorities are wrong." --Voltaire
Richard Foy ftp://ftp/netcom.com/pub/rf/rfoy/bkpo.html
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: In article <rfoyD4x...@netcom.com>
: rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes:
: : Discussions on subejcts such as homosexuality, abortion etc., no
: : matter who carefully crafted the phrases and the words, are never
: : intellectual debates. They are always emotional expressions, no
: : matter who deeply the emotions are buried. Thus it is futile to
: : argue intellectually on either side of these arguments.
: What alternative to dispassionate discussion do you prefer?
Sorry, but you do not discuss this in any sort of cordial manner.
You may be dispassionate, but it is a cold, incaring, and unthinking
dispassion that marks your words.
: cordially,
I don't see it. I just don't.
: don't
: tread
: on
: me
Step out of the way of other peoples *lives* and you will not be
tread upon. It has always amazed me that some people have the
arrogance to claim that what someone else does, in their own life,
is somehow an imposition upon theirs -- even when it is clear that
it is not.
Donn Pedro ....................................dfp...@uswnvg.com
Michael Zeleny
: Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
:: rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes:
::: Discussions on subejcts such as homosexuality, abortion etc., no
::: matter who carefully crafted the phrases and the words, are never
::: intellectual debates. They are always emotional expressions, no
::: matter who deeply the emotions are buried. Thus it is futile to
::: argue intellectually on either side of these arguments.
:: What alternative to dispassionate discussion do you prefer?
: Sorry, but you do not discuss this in any sort of cordial manner.
: You may be dispassionate, but it is a cold, incaring, and unthinking
: dispassion that marks your words.
Care and warmth are imperfect duties.
:: cordially,
Nevertheless, the words proceed straight from the heart.
: I don't see it. I just don't.
:: don't
:: tread
:: on
:: me
To those unmindful of historical precedent, I counsel careful
attention to the distinction between a request and a warning.
: Step out of the way of other peoples *lives* and you will not be
: tread upon. It has always amazed me that some people have the
: arrogance to claim that what someone else does, in their own life,
: is somehow an imposition upon theirs -- even when it is clear that
: it is not.
"No man is an island."
: Donn Pedro ....................................dfp...@uswnvg.com
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
> The implication is clear, -- given that nature's end in instilling
> lustful feelings within ourselves is the preservation of our species,
> it follows that any imaginative deviation from the reproductive ends
> of nature, is utterly blameworthy.
Alas, there are three flaws in that.
Firstly, the words "nature's end" indicate a teleological distortion
of evolution.
Secondly, "lustful feelings" for humans appear to have developed far
beyond those necessary for reproductive sex alone, and the standard
biological theory is that human hypersexuality serves social purposes.
Thirdly, "preservation of the species" encompasses more than simple
reproduction of the individual.
Try again, Zeleny.
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
>Gene Ward "I'm What Genders?" Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
>: Yet Zeleny admits to using contraceptive measures, which is an even greater
>: "violation", since it is undertaken for the purpose of preventing
>: conception, rather than being an incidental consequence of the type of
>: sexual activity in question. Zeleny is, according to Zeleny, an immoral
>: pervert.
>Correction -- unlike the ongoing sexual perusal of your orifices, normal
>means of contraception do not prevent conception, but merely lessen its
>natural likelihood, in view of the ever-present, non-negligible chance of
>pregnancy remaining under all but the unjustifiably debilitating surgical
>means of birth control.
Oh dear, it appears you have contradicted your own arguments yet *again*.
I quote:
"If your action is to proceed according to universal laws of your own
legislation, it cannot differ in kind from the laws that can arise uniformly
in a society of such free agents. (This is what Kant means by his transition
to the formula of the Kingdom of Ends.) Universal legislation of the maxim
of homosexual intercourse is incompatible with the genesis of men, and
therefore incompatible with human agency."
Since universal legislation of contraception would reduce the birth rate
to well below replacement levels, it is therefore incompatible with the
genesis of mankind, and therefore incompatible with human agency.
Since you claim that homosexuality is immoral on the individual level
because universal homosexuality is incompatible with the survival of mankind,
I must conclude that contraceptive sex is immoral because univeral
contraceptive sex is incompatible with the survival of mankind.
Another quote:
"If morality is universal, whatever is *generally* morally incumbent
upon anyone, is ipso facto incumbent upon everyone. Ii particular, if
the action X is required as the condition of your existence, you are
not in a position to delegate that type of action to anyone else."
Were you the result of a ruptured condom ? If not then non-contraceptive
sex was required as a condition of your existence, and therefore you are
not in a position to delegate it to anyone else. Ergo, Zeleny using
contraception is Zeleny acting immorally by his own logic.
And *another* quote:
"The homosexual claims that his choice to bugger his partner in no way
contravenes the possibility of conception of other creatures of their
kind occurring elsewhere, on a different occasion, between some other
human couple indulging in a disparate, fertile form of sex. But in
choosing to act in the way he does, he wilfully construes himself as
an anomaly to the principle in accordance with which such generative
action would occur -- and therefore as a deliberate exception to the
moral condition of his own genesis. Since morality admits of no
exceptions, he is acting immorally."
By using contraception, Zeleny, you willfully construe yourself as an
anomoly to the principle in accordance with which such generative action
would occur (defining generative action as that which leads to a level of
reproduction sufficient for survival of humanity), and therefore as a
deliberate exception to the moral condition of your own genesis. Since
morality admits of no exceptions, you would be acting immorally."
Please explain why you appear to be contradicting yourself *again*,
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
>The application of the moral rule to any social context presupposes an
>antecedent determination of a rational social order.
Such as a social order which includes a sufficient number of people
producing children, regardless of the non-reproductive choices of others ?
>You may choose a trade iff the general maxim of your choice is consistent
>with the functioning of such order.
So, the general maxim for someone choosing to be a student is not "be
a student" but "exercise free choice as to your occupation", given that
this has been shown to be empirically compatible with a functioning
economy.
I point out that the general maxim for the choice of non-reproductive
sex is not "have non-reproductive sex", but "exercise free choice between
non-reproductive sex and reproductive sex as you will". This is empirically
proven to be consistent with the replenishment of society.
It would appear that homosexuality is not immoral.
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
>orp...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Gary Phillips) writes:
>: Yes it does, Michael. What's the difference between "responsible
>: contraception" and oral or anal sex? They are all "essentially sterile"
>: and "counter-purposive" to procreation, to use your phraseology. If
>: "responsible contraception" is morally permissible, then so are oral and
>: anal sex, for exactly the same reasons, regardless of the sexes of the
>: parties involved.
:I have an aversion to saying the same thing more than twice to any
:single persom, without geting any signs of understanding in return.
:It makes me wonder about the intellectual honesty and adequacy of my
:interlocutor; and if I have no reason to regard him as anything other
:than a mendacious moron, the conversation must come to an end. So
:please help me out here. I have stated on several occasions that I
:refer to essences in a precise technical sense, which ought to be
:familiar to anyone who enjoyed a cursory acquaintance with the 2.5
:millennia of the Western philosophical tradition, from Aristotle and
:Aquinas to Putnam and Kripke. Nevertheless, you obstinately continue
:to regard my "essentially impossible" as synonymous with "highly
:unlikely". If you want to criticize your own arguments, there is no
:need to talk to anyone else; just make like Travis Bickle facing the
:mirror in _Taxi Driver_, and go for it. But if you prefer talking to
:other people, consider doing so in mutually agreeable terms.
Translation: He doesn't have a sustainable answer.
Gene Ward Smith
On 4 Mar 1995, Michael Zeleny wrote:
> : Are you a farmer, Zeleny ?
> No. But my occupation supports and sustains the farmers in virtue of
> playing a productive part in the economy.
There you have it. Zeleny claims that his occupation--he is a graduate
student in philosophy--helps farmers. What I would like to know is if he
thinks that writing articles extolling homophobia and attempting to get
them published in journals of philosophy helps farmers.
Of course, if all he means is that he is a part of the economy, so
is a crack dealer. So?
Gene Ward Smith
On 5 Mar 1995, Michael Zeleny wrote:
> In article <rfoyD4y...@netcom.com> rf...@netcom.com (Richard Foy) writes:
> If you are implying the impossibility of converting inverts through
> rational appeal, my experience differs. While I find it hard to
> motivate men with appeals to utilitarian considerations, Platonic
> Ideas work very well indeed.
There you have it. Zeleny is putting himself forward as the new Dr.
Socarides, by way of Socrates. Platonic Ideas will "convert inverts",
remarkable given the fact that Plato himself was an (albeit in later years
at least, celibate) "invert", who never was "converted" to the joys of
heterosexuality.
Zeleny the quack for KotM.
Michael Zeleny
: Still more evidence that Zeleny has his brain unzipped:
: On 5 Mar 1995, Michael Zeleny wrote:
:: If you are implying the impossibility of converting inverts through
:: rational appeal, my experience differs. While I find it hard to
:: motivate men with appeals to utilitarian considerations, Platonic
:: Ideas work very well indeed.
: There you have it. Zeleny is putting himself forward as the new Dr.
: Socarides, by way of Socrates. Platonic Ideas will "convert inverts",
: remarkable given the fact that Plato himself was an (albeit in later years
: at least, celibate) "invert", who never was "converted" to the joys of
: heterosexuality.
Do you have any evidence that Plato, who denounced homosexuality in
Republic and Laws, was a hypocrite, or are you thoughtlessly spouting
your habitual lies?
: Zeleny the quack for KotM.
: --
: Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/University of Toledo
: gsm...@lab1.utoledo.edu
cordially, don't
Michael Zeleny
: In article <3j7vpu$h...@saba.info.ucla.edu>
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:: In article <1995Mar3.0...@Princeton.EDU>
:: cms...@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Caitlin Mackay Shaw) writes:
::: As a side note, you fail to address the question of lesbians and
::: artificial insemination.
:: Just like you fail to take into account the difference between sexual
:: intercourse and a medical procedure.
: Hypothetical situation: lesbian couple has a supply of frozen sperm.
: Every morning they get up and do the turkey-baster thing. Is it moral
: or immoral for them to have sex?
Sperm comes from testicles, which are attached to a man. It follows
that your lesbian couple is using some man as mere means to their end.
: I say it's amoral -- completely irrelevent to the question of the
: morality of reproduction. This is because **sex and procreation are not
: intrinsically linked** in this example. For the above women, sex has as
: much to do with children as music does.
Can you get pregnant by listening to the Apassionata?
Michael Zeleny
::: Is the action of growing food necessary to your existence, Zeleny ?
:: Only in virtue of the selfsame social arrangement that directs me to
:: buy food in the grocery store more often than hunt and farm for it.
: I'm sorry, but you yourself have ruled out social arrangements as a means
: of satisfying these moral requirements.
:
: I quote:
:
: "Life, volition, and ideas are wholly dissimilar from any material
: possessions, in arising and attaching to their owners irrespectively of
: any social conventions, and in being physically inalienable therefrom.
: Furthermore, morality can and does arise before and independently of the
: notion of material ownership, or any other social institution whatsoever,
: though this fact may be difficult to grasp for someone happily inured to
: the cupidity and rapaciousness of the Anglo-American tradition."
:
: If morality arises before social institutions such as capitalist trade,
: then you must consider the morality of not farming sans a capitalist society.
Not at all. While the moral proscription against murder and buggery
arises independently of any social institution, and applies equally
well to man in the state of nature, the duty to work depends on the
social organization of labor, and varies depending on the functioning
of the relevant institutions.
: If this morality is to be altered by the fact of a capitalist society,
: meaning that you no longer are obligated to provide food for yourself and
: the next generation due to the existance of farmers, then you cannot hold
: that the morality of unfertile sex cannot equally be altered due to the
: existance of people willing and able to breed far in excess of replacement
: numbers.
Once again, the issue of replacement numbers is a red herring. You
have an imperfect duty to continue your lineage because you arise in a
continuous chain of human generations. You have a perfect duty not to
exercise your generative powers in a way essentially incompatible with
the continuation of your lineage. That is all.
: One or the other, Zeleny.
:
: Are gays immoral for not having PiV sex in a world full of parents ?
Yes.
: Are you moral despite foisting the obligation to feed yourself onto
: others ?
Feeding oneself is a biological necessity. Providing food for oneself
is a social undertaking. If I were to refuse food unless voluntarily
spoon-fed by others, I would be acting immorally. If I paid them to
spoon-feed me, I would be acting unexceptionably.
::: Are you a farmer, Zeleny ?
:: No. But my occupation supports and sustains the farmers in virtue of
:: playing a productive part in the economy.
: Really ?
:
: I thought you were a philosophy student.
:
: Should we get a farmer's opinion as to the "support" and "sustainance"
: they get from philosophy students ?
:
: If all the philosophy students died tomorrow, what would the effect on
: food production be ? If the answer is "none", then you do not participate
: in providing food, as you are morally obligated to.
:
: And if you're not a philosophy student, do *please* tell us what you
: really are. We'd love to know how a janitor got net access.
Thank you for concerning yourself with my occupation. I am indeed a
supernumerary graduate student in philosophy at UCLA. However I am
not fond of the Humnet facilities, and prefer to use other means for
Internet access. I have this Math department account because my
company does editorial and technical work for the academia. If you
need technical editing, typesetting, or multimedia development,
inquire within.
:: I see that you still have not bothered to read the book. Does it
:: gratify you to proffer opinions on the subject you know nothing about?
:: Last time it was evolution; before that it was constitutional law; now
:: it is Kantian ethics. What do you do for an encore -- deliver a
:: spontaneous lecture on cold fusion?
: Done that already.
:
: Commented on possible high explosive lenses triggering fusion reactions.
: Somebody on sci.military did a thesis on it.
:
: Better to know a little on many subjects, and be able to use it, than to
: know a lot about one, and to use it only as a cover for bigotry, hmm ?
I would be more impressed if I had seen any evidence of your alleged
ability to use your knowledge. You presume to discuss American law
without any awareness of its provenance and justification, never mind
the difference between criminal and civil litigation standards. You
presume to discuss Kantian ethics without any acquaintance with Kant's
writings. In short, you give every indication of being a presumptuous
nincompoop. It is a rare privilege to expose your debating ineptitude
and intellectual inadequacy.
::: This does *not* mean that there is a moral requirement for any
::: *particular* person to breed or to farm, in the absence of any crisis
::: requiring this. The fact that your existence required *some* people to
::: breed in order that the human race survived does not mean that *everyone*
::: is obliged to breed.
:: No one ever claimed otherwise.
: Hold that thought...
::: It means that everyone is obliged to not prevent sufficent others from
::: breeding as to threaten extinction. In a similar vein, the fact that food
::: needed to be grown to feed the human race does not obligate *everyone* to
::: grow food. It obligates everyone to not take actions designed to prevent
::: sufficient food being grown.
:: That is hardly sufficient to satisfy your duty.
: You just agreed that *everyone* is not abliged to breed. In the absence
: of a population crisis, you just agreed that there was no obligation for
: a *particular* person to breed.
Everyone incurs an *imperfect* duty to engender some progeny. The
qualification means that no one has a specific obligation to breed at
any particular time, just as no one has a specific obligation to help
any particular person at any particular time. Imperfect duties have a
wide scope, and may be overriden by other imperfect duties -- you may
opt not to have children until you finish your education, or not to
give money to charity in order to help your parents. However everyone
has a perfect duty not to act on any maxim whose universal form would
prevent him from fulfilling any imperfect duty. Thus it is wrong to
act on a maxim of essential non-procreation, just as it would be wrong
to act on a maxim of essential non-benevolence.
:: The obligation is to act in a way conforming to a possible universal law
:: consistent with the production of food -- or the production of the next
:: generation.
: Uh-huh. They're called "don't stop the farmers from growing food" and
: "don't stop your neighbours from producing sufficient offspring".
No. The formula of the universal law rules out any action essentially
incompatible with the performance of an imperfect duty, because the
success of your willing the essential incompatibility into universal
law would prevent the satisfaction of the duty in question by anyone,
at any time and place.
: Remember ? You agreed that there was no obligation that *everyone*
: breed.
See above.
:: In an economy characterized by a division of labor, any productive
:: occupation satisfies this criterion.
: I note the word "economy", the result of human economic choices. Hold
: that thought...
Be my guest.
:: However the human nature does not admit of a sexual division of labor.
: Pardon me, but we are not discussing "human nature" in the comparison
: of these analogues. The correct thing to address is "the result of human
: reproductive choices".
:
: The result of current human economic choices is a society in which
: sufficient food is grown to continue the human race. You have said, as I
: understand it, that the mere participation in this is sufficient to
: satisfy the moral obligation to provide food.
:
: The result of current human reproductive choices is a society in which
: sufficient children are produced to continue the human race. Therefore, the
: mere participation in these choices, such as deciding not to produce one's
: own but equally not to prevent others from producing children, is sufficient
: to satisfy the moral obligation to provide children.
Reproduction is the power of sexuality. Necessarily, the sexual
behavior of the homosexual contributes nothing to reproduction.
In so far as reproduction is a duty, homosexuality is immoral.
Production is the power of labor. Necessarily, the work of Sisyphus
contributes nothing to production. In so far as production is a duty,
the labor of Sisyphus is immoral.
Now put Sisyphus in a civil society. In place of Zeus condemning him
to an eternity of useless toil, we give him an eccentric billionnaire
employer who freely consents to sponsor his perpetual scientific study
of manual lapidary elevation over a steep gradient. With his paycheck
in hand, Sisyphus places a standing order with Domino Pizza delivery,
thereby supporting an entire community of Friulian pepperoni growers.
Suddenly, his maxim of worthless toil obligingly sponsored by Uncle
Sugar acquires an essential connection to the production of food in
virtue of its patronage. Sisyphus is redeemed.
Now tell me what sort of essential connection to reproduction could
redeem an act of homosexual buggery.
::: Homosexuality and homosexuals, as with all non-fertile sex acts and
::: members of the human race, threaten the existence of mankind not at all.
:: The same could be said about self-mutilators, zoophiles, and drug addicts.
: That is correct. So ?
I consider these practices exemplary of degradation and self-abuse.
Your intuitions evidently differ.
::: He commented that there were academics that were not masters of their
::: subject, and that they were deadly boring at parties.
:: It is ever so telling that you should be concerned about performance at
:: parties more than about performance in the workplace.
: I don't have to worry about performance in the workplace.
:
: The head of the Ministry I'm on contract to, one of the ten senior civil
: servants in the entire country, has complimented me on my performance, is
: willing to put this in writing, wants to meet with me on Thursday so I can
: recommend a course of action on the current project, and has received a
: recommendation from my boss that the Ministry attempt to retain me permanently.
: What *do* you do for a living, Zeleny ?
Troll for gifts, grants, and contracts, mostly.
:: The best teacher I ever knew has taught me that no knowledge can be
:: imparted unto a pupil who has no humility. You are nearly as arrogant
:: and obstreperous as I was in my day. I would be a fool to try teaching
:: you philosophy before you have been thoroughly humiliated.
: I'd be a fool to pay for a self-deceitful liar as a teacher.
You are a fool regardless -- but I do not recall ever having asked you
for any remuneration for charitably assisting your remedial education.
::: That includes oral sex. Ever had a blow-job, Zeleny ?
:: Foreplay has no bearing on the productive potential of intercourse.
: "Blow-job" usually refers to a sexual act in and of itself, one
: continued to orgasm.
:
: Those of us who have had sex are aware that males tend to have problems
: retaining erections immediately after ejaculation.
Refractory periods greatly depend on one's virility. Perhaps you just
fail to measure up.
::: That includes contraception. Ever worn a condom or had sex with someone
::: on the Pill, Zeleny ?
:: Contraceptives do not exclude pregnancy. They merely lessen its likelihood.
: Are you trying to tell us that sex under contraceptives is not an
: "essentially infertile sexual act" ?
No. As every sexually active individual ought to know, it is a sexual
act of decreased fertility.
: One also points out that if everyone had sex under contraception, it is
: highly unlikely that the human race would survive. You are therefore
: failing to accept your duty to reproduce the species by foisting the burden
: off on those couples not using contraception.
:
: How immoral !
See above, the part about imperfect duties.
::: That includes masturbation. Ever jacked off, Zeleny ?
:: Masturbation can degenerate into a form of deleterious self-abuse. But
:: it is never a sex act in the relevant sense, since it does not involve
:: any choice of partners outside of your imagination.
: Ever been jacked off, Zeleny ?
No. Outside assistance does not work for me. But since you have
taken it upon yourself to interrogate me about my sexual habits, I
feel entitled to return the favor in order to determine your personal
motivation in pursuing this argument.
Have you ever buggered a man, or been buggered by a man?
Have you ever sucked cock, or had yourself blown by another man?
Have you ever had sex with a sheep, a cow, a horse, a dog, a dingo, an
emu, a wombat, or any other wild or domestic animal not of your own
species?
Feel free to volunteer any other information you may deem apposite.
Please be precise and specific.
::: That includes wet dreams due to prolonged celibacy. Ever had a
::: wet dream, Zeleny ?
:: Nocturnal emissions are hardly exemplary of deliberate action.
: Prolonged celibacy is a conscious choice. You could, for example, rape
: whenever you get the urge. I can testify from experience that the rate of
: nocturnal emissions varies considerably depending on one's sex life.
:
: Ever had a wet dream while celibate, Zeleny ?
You really ought to get out more often.
::: Ever had sex at all, Zeleny ?
:: Funny you should mention -- I am told that I never will have sex again
:: unless I come to bed in fifteen minutes. I better cut this short.
: Remember, wanking's probably a no-no. Tell yourself to get lost.
I will let Erin deal with this one.
::: Universal legislation of the maxim of full-time study is incompatible
::: with the existence of men, and therefore incompatible with human agency.
::: Does this imply that being a university student is immoral ?
:: Students participate in the economy, just as Keynesian ditch-diggers.
: Sorry. In your own words, "Furthermore, morality can and does arise
: before and independently of the notion of material ownership, or any other
: social institution whatsoever [...]".
Indeed. Morality arises before and independently of any social
institution, because all social institutions presuppose the moral
doctrine of duty and right. However the historical emergence of
these institutions expands the realm of moral deliberation by
introducing a new set of problems and solutions. Thus a new
stratum of moral law arises to account for the changing
circumstances.
: If you are now claiming that your moral obligation to produce food is
: altered to supporting others who produce food because of existing social
: circumstances, the capitalist economy, equally a homosexual's moral
: obligation to produce and raise children is altered to supporting others
: who produce and raise children because of existing social circumstances,
: a sufficient birth rate.
The disanalogy here is that labor is defined by the totality of
its social connections, whereas sexuality is a private matter
between the three people involved.
: Homosexuals who pay taxes, babysit, or work at a productive job support
: the raising of children at least as much as students support farmers.
They do not, however, support it by dint of, or in virtue of
anything having to do with, their sexuality.
::: Your arguments, as shown above, fall to pieces under their own idiocy.
:: Better luck next time.
: *Crash* <tinkle tinkle tinkle>
I thought you had lost your marbles a long time ago.
Michael Zeleny
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:: orp...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Gary Phillips) writes:
::: Yes it does, Michael. What's the difference between "responsible
::: contraception" and oral or anal sex? They are all "essentially sterile"
::: and "counter-purposive" to procreation, to use your phraseology. If
::: "responsible contraception" is morally permissible, then so are oral and
::: anal sex, for exactly the same reasons, regardless of the sexes of the
::: parties involved.
:: I have an aversion to saying the same thing more than twice to any
:: single persom, without geting any signs of understanding in return.
:: It makes me wonder about the intellectual honesty and adequacy of my
:: interlocutor; and if I have no reason to regard him as anything other
:: than a mendacious moron, the conversation must come to an end. So
:: please help me out here. I have stated on several occasions that I
:: refer to essences in a precise technical sense, which ought to be
:: familiar to anyone who enjoyed a cursory acquaintance with the 2.5
:: millennia of the Western philosophical tradition, from Aristotle and
:: Aquinas to Putnam and Kripke. Nevertheless, you obstinately continue
:: to regard my "essentially impossible" as synonymous with "highly
:: unlikely". If you want to criticize your own arguments, there is no
:: need to talk to anyone else; just make like Travis Bickle facing the
:: mirror in _Taxi Driver_, and go for it. But if you prefer talking to
:: other people, consider doing so in mutually agreeable terms.
: Translation: He doesn't have a sustainable answer.
There is really no need for you to advertise your obvious ignorance,
exacerbated by a lack of reading comprehension.
Erin Y. Zhu
>In article <3jehi6$m...@golem.wcc.govt.nz> quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:
[buncha stuff]
>::: That includes oral sex. Ever had a blow-job, Zeleny ?
>:: Foreplay has no bearing on the productive potential of intercourse.
>: "Blow-job" usually refers to a sexual act in and of itself, one
>: continued to orgasm.
>: Those of us who have had sex are aware that males tend to have problems
>: retaining erections immediately after ejaculation.
>Refractory periods greatly depend on one's virility. Perhaps you just
>fail to measure up.
Also known as "mine is bigger [harder, longer, better] than yours. Ha!"
Men...
>::: That includes contraception. Ever worn a condom or had sex with someone
>::: on the Pill, Zeleny ?
>:: Contraceptives do not exclude pregnancy. They merely lessen its likelihood.
>: Are you trying to tell us that sex under contraceptives is not an
>: "essentially infertile sexual act" ?
Of course it's not "essentially infertile", the average failure rate
of the Pill is something around 15% per couple-year. Go read the
alt.sex FAQ or something.
>: Prolonged celibacy is a conscious choice. You could, for example, rape
>: whenever you get the urge.
He could. He doesn't. Sometimes a modicum of restraint can do wonders.
Not that you'd be able to tell, from looking at 'im.
I can testify from experience that the rate of
>: nocturnal emissions varies considerably depending on one's sex life.
My condolences to your sheets.
>: Ever had a wet dream while celibate, Zeleny ?
>::: Ever had sex at all, Zeleny ?
You know, if you were a woman I'd be concerned about this apparent
fixation on Michael's sexual habits and experiences.
>:: Funny you should mention -- I am told that I never will have sex again
>:: unless I come to bed in fifteen minutes. I better cut this short.
Whattaboy. Did I mention that I like 'em obedient, snuggly, fuzzy, with
a soft curly tail -- oops, that's the puppy.
>: Remember, wanking's probably a no-no. Tell yourself to get lost.
>I will let Erin deal with this one.
Posting in your own defense, my dear, is your problem. I will
occasionally watch the mud fly, unless, of course, it splashes a
little too close to yours truly. But you know, after being told that
I'm non-existent for the dozenth time or so, it gets a little old.
And frankly it's been said better before.
Perhaps it's about time I invoke the Nazis (or have they been invoked
already?) so that the thread may die a sudden but graceful demise.
Now off to bed with you, honey, and no complaining about headaches.
--Erin, who not only doesn't exist but also doesn't know why she
bothers reading the umpteenth replay of the homosexuality-flame-war
series. *sigh* The things one puts up with for the sake of
True Love[tm]...
Rod Swift
>: Translation: He doesn't have a sustainable answer.
>There is really no need for you to advertise your obvious ignorance,
>exacerbated by a lack of reading comprehension.
Translation: I can't answer Tony Quirke, so I'll just add a cute
little cop out at the end of this whole message.
Rod
--
| ... ..... | be...@fohnix.metronet.com | ******* |
| + + + + + + + + | http://nether.net/~rod/html/ | ***** |
| * * * * * * * * | | *** |
| R o d S w i f t | Hate is *NOT* a family value | * |
Bryce Wilcox
Michael Zeleny <zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>:: If you are implying the impossibility of converting inverts through
>:: rational appeal, my experience differs. While I find it hard to
>:: motivate men with appeals to utilitarian considerations, Platonic
>:: Ideas work very well indeed.
Guys, Zeleny is just plainly underqualified for Kookdom. Have you ever dealt
with Serdar Argic or Anthony Licalzi? Zeleny is, as far as I can tell, just a
run-of-the-mill homophobe and blowhard. I wish you well in your attempts to
reveal the errors in his beliefs, but I do not think KotM nomination is the
way to go.
Bryce
Island Life in a Chaos Sea. | There are only 2 * 10^207 possible two-line
Bryce....@Colorado.EDU | signatures and I have dibs on this one.
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: In article <3je99e$l...@golem.wcc.govt.nz> quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:
: : And to be even clearer:
: :
: : "Any *essentially* non-fertile sex act is immoral."
: I stand by that claim.
MIchael stands there, comforted by his belief, as many, many poeple
who have committed non-fertile sex acts point, laugh and go back to
their lives, secure in the knowlege that his judgement of morality
doesn't apply to them.
Donn Pedro ....................................dfp...@uswnvg.com
Gene Ward Smith
> Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
> : Excuse me, Pervert, but I am not the one defending what I call perversion,
> : you are the one defending and admitting to what you (if you were honest)
> : would be compelled to call sexual perversion.
> You are not excused, fonkin. If you are too fatuous to comprehend the
> simple moral and modal difference between heterosexual contraception
> and homosexual buggery, it is your own problem. Do not blame the world
> for your pathetic intellectual handicap.
You are either too fatuous to notice I was *not* talking about conception,
but about precisely the opposite--or you are lying, which would not be
remarkable.
Michael Zeleny
Consider that the average actual failure rate of the Pill is 15% per
couple-year. Taking the average generation gap to be 25 years leaves
us with more than adequate margin for a positive population growth.
: Another quote:
:
: "If morality is universal, whatever is *generally* morally incumbent
: upon anyone, is ipso facto incumbent upon everyone. Ii particular, if
: the action X is required as the condition of your existence, you are
: not in a position to delegate that type of action to anyone else."
:
: Were you the result of a ruptured condom ? If not then non-contraceptive
: sex was required as a condition of your existence, and therefore you are
: not in a position to delegate it to anyone else. Ergo, Zeleny using
: contraception is Zeleny acting immorally by his own logic.
Accidents do not enter into the individuation of essences. All men
are conceived as a result of a fertile sex act, regardless of the
peculiar aspects of its configuration. There is no duty to imitate
the particular conditions of your provenance implicit in the general
duty to recapitulate its possibility in all actions of the same type.
: And *another* quote:
:
: "The homosexual claims that his choice to bugger his partner in no way
: contravenes the possibility of conception of other creatures of their
: kind occurring elsewhere, on a different occasion, between some other
: human couple indulging in a disparate, fertile form of sex. But in
: choosing to act in the way he does, he wilfully construes himself as
: an anomaly to the principle in accordance with which such generative
: action would occur -- and therefore as a deliberate exception to the
: moral condition of his own genesis. Since morality admits of no
: exceptions, he is acting immorally."
:
: By using contraception, Zeleny, you willfully construe yourself as an
: anomoly to the principle in accordance with which such generative action
: would occur (defining generative action as that which leads to a level of
: reproduction sufficient for survival of humanity), and therefore as a
: deliberate exception to the moral condition of your own genesis. Since
: morality admits of no exceptions, you would be acting immorally."
Not good enough. See above.
: Please explain why you appear to be contradicting yourself *again*,
: Zeleny.
As Plato would gladly tell you, appearances are all in your head.
Gene Ward Smith
> Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
> : Excuse me, Pervert, but I am not the one defending what I call perversion,
> : you are the one defending and admitting to what you (if you were honest)
> : would be compelled to call sexual perversion.
> You are not excused, fonkin. If you are too fatuous to comprehend the
> simple moral and modal difference between heterosexual contraception
> and homosexual buggery, it is your own problem. Do not blame the world
> for your pathetic intellectual handicap.
Oops--I need new glasses. The man said "contraception". Of course, the
difference in this respect makes Zeleny more of a pervert, not less. In
the case of what Zeleny is pleased to call "buggery" (of any kind,
including heterosexual) one is unlikely to produce unintended offspring.
In the case of PIV sexual intercourse, in many cases one is quite likely.
Hence, the interference with conception involved in using for instance a
condom is far more consequential, and if this is what determines
perversion, far more perverted. Of course, it gets really interesting
when you consider that a male homosexual sex act can be undertaken with
the intent (often successful, in these cases) of producing offspring.
By the way, I notice you didn't answer my question about sex
with girls under eighteen. You ever do that, Pervert? What is
your profound analysis of it?
Gene Ward Smith
> Gene Ward "I'm What Genders?" Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
> : Yet Zeleny admits to using contraceptive measures, which is an even greater
> : "violation", since it is undertaken for the purpose of preventing
> : conception, rather than being an incidental consequence of the type of
> : sexual activity in question. Zeleny is, according to Zeleny, an immoral
> : pervert.
> Correction -- unlike the ongoing sexual perusal of your orifices, normal
> means of contraception do not prevent conception, but merely lessen its
> natural likelihood, in view of the ever-present, non-negligible chance of
> pregnancy remaining under all but the unjustifiably debilitating surgical
> means of birth control.
Interesting. At what probability of conception does sex using
contraceptive devices suddenly become perverse--and where is your
philosophical argument that p=0.001, say, is that point? Or is there a
perversion function of Perv(p), which returns 0 perversion when p=1, and
drops continuously to complete perversion Perv(0)=1 when p=0? I would be
interested in your analysis of this perversion function, and your
philosophical exposition of how it can be calculated and what its properties
are.
Or are we merely dealing with a recto-cranial inversion here?
> Since we have been over this ground many times
> before, I surmise that the deterioration of your immune system under a
> perpetual ingress of foreign proteins has gravely taxed and damaged your
> modest cognitive faculties.
My immune system is just fine, Pervert. Your AIDS jokes are what is
really sick. See a doctor.
Michael Zeleny
ku...@abel.harvard.edu (Tal Kubo) writes:
: In article <3jhmk0$e...@saba.info.ucla.edu>,
: Erin Y. Zhu <z...@oak.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
:: [...]
:: I will occasionally watch the mud fly, [...]
: I missed the beginning of this latest caustophilic episode,
: but it looks like the usual suspects are assembled: our
: mutual friend; one obstreperous Antipodean; the vitreocopulationist
: Midwestern Hag sniping from the peanut gallery; and one santimonious
: emotional propagandist to bring in the Nazis.
You may have missed the beginning because it transpired in
alt.law-enforcement, the home of my spare time career choice.
Since Bruce Garrett has seemingly taken it upon himself to
maintain the official transcript of my appalling heterosexism,
he might be able to assist you in catching up with the earlier
pre-philosophical screeds.
:: Perhaps it's about time I invoke the Nazis (or have they been invoked
:: already?) so that the thread may die a sudden but graceful demise.
: See above. The B.G. has pre-empted you.
As did Gene Ward "I'm What Genders?" Smith. Shall we issue a roster
call for the names of Nazi sympathizers so certified by the Midwestern
Hag? Aside from the two of us, I know of the title bestowed upon Mike
Morris and Michael Feld. Are there any others?
:: --Erin, who not only doesn't exist but also doesn't know why she
:: bothers reading the umpteenth replay of the homosexuality-flame-war
:: series. *sigh* The things one puts up with for the sake of
:: True Love[tm]...
: Personally, I'm waiting for T.Q. to post his test scores. True, he is
: obsessing over your email privileges, but it will take more than that
: to follow in the footsteps of John Donald Collier.
Admittedly, Quirke got off to a good start by complimenting himself
for sucking up to "one of the ten senior civil servants in the entire
country". Nothing like a bureaucratic toady to keep the shit flying.
Michael Zeleny
Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
:: Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
::: Excuse me, Pervert, but I am not the one defending what I call perversion,
::: you are the one defending and admitting to what you (if you were honest)
::: would be compelled to call sexual perversion.
:: You are not excused, fonkin. If you are too fatuous to comprehend the
:: simple moral and modal difference between heterosexual contraception
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:: and homosexual buggery, it is your own problem. Do not blame the world
:: for your pathetic intellectual handicap.
: You are either too fatuous to notice I was *not* talking about conception,
^^^^^^^^^^
: but about precisely the opposite--or you are lying, which would not be
: remarkable.
Though you may feel entitled to the use of an idiolect wherein
"conception" is synonymous with "contraception", the rest of the
world is hardly obliged to follow you in your linguistico-logical
confusion.
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
>Once again, there is no duty to reproduce. There is only a duty not
>to prevent reproduction by an intrinsic aspect of your sexuality.
Homosexuals do not prevent reproduction.
They prevent their *own* reproduction, but you yourself have pointed
out that there is no duty for them to reproduce. They do not prevent
general reproduction, the replenishment of the human species, and the
creation of moral actors.
You have claimed that it is somehow immoral not to undertake reproductive
sex, but to shift the "burden" off to others.
I quote Bertrand Russell ("What I Believe"):
"But I do not believe that we can decide what sort of conduct is right
and wrong except by reference to it's probable consequences. Given an end
to be achieved, it is a question for science to discover how to achieve it."
Quite simply, Zeleny, if we take as a given that the continued existence
of the human species is desirable, it can be empirically shown that anal,
oral, bestial, or necrophiliac sex *as people choose* does not prevent this.
Your argument, based on an application or misapplication of Kant's
comments, has no bearing on the world around us. When the consequences of
engaging in "moral" acts are indistinguishable from the consequences of
engaging in "immoral" acts, then the very concept of morality has departed
from a connection with reality.
Your argument therefore serves only as a means for you to grind your
axe, since you have given "morality" a definition the rest of us fail to
share, grubbing as we do in reality rather than Zelenyworld.
- Tony Q.
---
Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand (email for phone no)
"For people with taste, for people who think.
Beer is not nice. It's a bad thing to drink.
The consumption of beer is low-class and risky.
Stick to gin, vodka, cocaine, and whiskey." - PJ O'Rourke
Norman R. Gall
>Michael Zeleny (zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>: In article <3je99e$l...@golem.wcc.govt.nz> quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:
>: : And to be even clearer:
>: :
>: : "Any *essentially* non-fertile sex act is immoral."
>
>: I stand by that claim.
>
>MIchael stands there, comforted by his belief, as many, many poeple
>who have committed non-fertile sex acts point, laugh and go back to
>their lives, secure in the knowlege that his judgement of morality
>doesn't apply to them.
Quite right. Not only is the idea that a sex act can be *essentially*
anything either empty or irrelevant to morality, the above judgement
doesn't even seem to express what Zeleny wants it to express.
What makes a sex act 'fertile'? Sex acts aren't able to bear offspring,
organisms are. Even in the most figurative interpretation of 'fertile'
(fruitful) we are left to ask what fruitful means... what are the fruits
of a sex act? Semen (for men)? Orgasm? A sore wrist? Unless we wish to
invoke that question begging concept 'essentiality'...
It just shows again how vacuous Zeleny's position really is...
Norm Gall
--
"If people did not sometimes do silly things, nothing intelligent
would ever get done." L. Wittgenstein, CV 50
---> Finger ga...@hadar.cc.umanitoba.ca for my pgp public key
Gene Ward Smith
> Of course it's not "essentially infertile", the average failure rate
> of the Pill is something around 15% per couple-year. Go read the
> alt.sex FAQ or something.
Ah, an expert. Perhaps *you* would care to expound the perversion
function Perv(p)? Clearly, you think Perv(0.15), whatever it imay be, is
still low enough not to count as perverse, with p measured in terms of
couple-years.
> You know, if you were a woman I'd be concerned about this apparent
> fixation on Michael's sexual habits and experiences.
Why? Your creepy, vile, obnoxious friend has deliberately spread his hate
and lies all over the net, making inquiries into his sexual habits quite
legitimate and resonable. Since you seem to have some aspirations to
becoming an obnoxious net bigot yourself, you can expect the same if you
keep it up.
I've got a few questions I would like to ask.
Tal Kubo
>
>: I missed the beginning of this latest caustophilic episode,
>: but it looks like the usual suspects are assembled: our
>: mutual friend; one obstreperous Antipodean; the vitreocopulationist
>: Midwestern Hag sniping from the peanut gallery; and one santimonious
>: emotional propagandist to bring in the Nazis.
>
>You may have missed the beginning because it transpired in
>alt.law-enforcement, the home of my spare time career choice.
>Since Bruce Garrett has seemingly taken it upon himself to
>maintain the official transcript of my appalling heterosexism,
"Context" is his middle name! There is something touching and
devotional, though, about his archival scrivening.
>he might be able to assist you in catching up with the earlier
>pre-philosophical screeds.
I'm eagerly awaiting the next installment of The Official Transcript Of
Virulent Homophobia. Dollars to donuts that Herr Garrett will cough it
up at least once before this discussion is over.
>:: Perhaps it's about time I invoke the Nazis (or have they been invoked
>:: already?) so that the thread may die a sudden but graceful demise.
>
>: See above. The B.G. has pre-empted you.
>
>As did Gene Ward "I'm What Genders?" Smith. Shall we issue a roster
>call for the names of Nazi sympathizers so certified by the Midwestern
>Hag?
As immigrants to these shores, we are subject to deportation for Nazi
activities. Now that we've been outed, I'd like to know what legal entity
will handle the impending Speech Crimes Tribunal: the Hague? the United
Nations?? the Harvard Ad Board???
> Aside from the two of us, I know of the title bestowed upon Mike
>Morris and Michael Feld. Are there any others?
Other than M^2, that makes it two Yids and an Israeli on the Nazi List.
The good Doctor's credibility towers once more.
>: Personally, I'm waiting for T.Q. to post his test scores. True, he is
>: obsessing over your email privileges, but it will take more than that
>: to follow in the footsteps of John Donald Collier.
>
>Admittedly, Quirke got off to a good start by complimenting himself
>for sucking up to "one of the ten senior civil servants in the entire
>country". Nothing like a bureaucratic toady to keep the shit flying.
Alas, I missed that. If Herr Garrett would be so kind as to also
be Geheimrat Quirke's copyist, such lapses could be avoided.
>cordially, don't
>mikhail zel...@math.ucla.edu tread
>writing from the disneyland of formal philosophy on
>"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes." me
Cheers from the PRC, where we are enjoying LA-like weather thanks
to global warming.
Gary Weston
: quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:
: > Of course, I've actually *known* homosexual lovers. I see no difference
: >between the quality of their love and my own. Thus, being trained in
: >a semi-scientific fashion, I must conclude that homosexual sexual relations
: >are no more "animal" than my own.
: I'd like to see how Zeleny responds to the fact that
: heterosexuals in pre-modern times used anal sex as a form of
: natural expression in aid of contraception....
In many cultures they still do.
--
Gary Weston vi...@crl.com |Nunca entra en disputas.
Petaluma, CA Pues, de vez en cuando...
Erin Y. Zhu
Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
>On 7 Mar 1995, Erin Y. Zhu wrote:
>> Of course it's not "essentially infertile", the average failure rate
>> of the Pill is something around 15% per couple-year. Go read the
>> alt.sex FAQ or something.
>Ah, an expert.
No, merely a woman who likes to know about the chemicals and hormones
that she takes into her body. And one who has had a far too close
brush with that 15%.
>Perhaps *you* would care to expound the perversion
>function Perv(p)? Clearly, you think Perv(0.15), whatever it imay be, is
>still low enough not to count as perverse, with p measured in terms of
>couple-years.
You know, you really shouldn't go around making unwarranted
assumptions. Especially if you try to interrogate people based on
those unwarranted assumptions. I don't believe I have ever posted
anything concerning perversion of the sexual kind, or even quoted
anything with the word "pervert" or "perversion", up until your
interesting little accusation came up. And yet you go merrily ahead
assuming that just because I call a certain person friend and lover,
that I must then borrow his head whenever I were to have an opinion on
anything.
>> You know, if you were a woman I'd be concerned about this apparent
>> fixation on Michael's sexual habits and experiences.
>Why? Your creepy, vile, obnoxious friend has deliberately spread his hate
>and lies all over the net, making inquiries into his sexual habits quite
>legitimate and resonable.
Because I don't like to share (at least not unknowningly), however
obnoxious and flame-inducing he happens to be. I would dispute the
"creepy" and "vile" part, though.
>Since you seem to have some aspirations to
>becoming an obnoxious net bigot yourself, you can expect the same if you
>keep it up.
Actually, I am semi-retired from the 'net, and have been for years. I
do not, however, care for aspersions on my person, and I especially do
not care for careless people who think they know all about my
inclinations to bigotry through my association with a certain poster.
>I've got a few questions I would like to ask.
Go right ahead. So long as you are actually bother to ask, without
preconceived notions of how I "should" answer.
--Erin
Gene Ward Smith
> : There you have it. Zeleny is putting himself forward as the new Dr.
> : Socarides, by way of Socrates. Platonic Ideas will "convert inverts",
> : remarkable given the fact that Plato himself was an (albeit in later years
> : at least, celibate) "invert", who never was "converted" to the joys of
> : heterosexuality.
> Do you have any evidence that Plato, who denounced homosexuality in
> Republic and Laws, was a hypocrite, or are you thoughtlessly spouting
> your habitual lies?
Do you have any evidence that Plato, who extolled homosexuality in the
Symposium, was a hypocrite, or are you thoughtlessly spouting your
habitual lies?
Apparently you are too stupid to understand Plato. Let me explain. Plato
was not anti-homosexual, he was anti-sex. The whole point of a lot of the
stuff you read in the dialogues is how very wonderful and noble it is to
sublimate, as we moderns would say, the sexual-romantic impulse. There is
not a trace of heterosexual feeling in Plato, but tons of homoeroticism.
Love poetry attributed to Plato is of a high literary quality, and is
homoerotic. Despite your moronic drivel about lies, I did not claim that
Plato was a "practicing homosexual" by the time he wrote Laws, though I
think you would need to be an idiot not to see that he almost certainly
was as a young man.
Incidentally, in the Republic, which you are using as evidence, the
discussion of people-breeding does not exactly sound like a paean to
the wonders of heterosexual romance; on the other hand, the idea that
the conquering hero might find a smooch from the youths of the city
a suitable reward is thought to be obvious.
Philosophy is supposed to be your subject. I suggest you learn it.
Tal Kubo
soc.singles removed from followups.
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950308130813.2844D-100000@lab1>,
Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> wrote:
>On 7 Mar 1995, Erin Y. Zhu wrote:
>
>> Of course it's not "essentially infertile", the average failure rate
>> of the Pill is something around 15% per couple-year. Go read the
>> alt.sex FAQ or something.
>
>Ah, an expert. Perhaps *you* would care to expound the perversion
>function Perv(p)? Clearly, you think Perv(0.15), whatever it imay be, is
^^^^^^^
>still low enough not to count as perverse, with p measured in terms of
>couple-years.
Of course, Gene is lying. I don't recall Erin ever taking any
position, in this newsgroup or anywhere else, on "perversity" of
sexual practices, let alone its relation to contraception. That he takes
an elementary factual correction as an indicator of bigotry once again
attests to his systematic inability to distinguish between "homophobia"
and non-endorsement of his own net.position.
>> You know, if you were a woman I'd be concerned about this apparent
>> fixation on Michael's sexual habits and experiences.
>
>Why? Your creepy, vile, obnoxious friend has deliberately spread his hate
>and lies all over the net, making inquiries into his sexual habits quite
>legitimate and resonable.
"Lies"? You mean "disagreement with moi". A "nonstandard" usage to
say the least.
In a recent thread on another newsgroup, Gene accused another
poster of dishonesty. When that poster then exposed Gene's own
confabulation of the initial context of their prior discussion,
concluding that (and I quote) "GENE IS LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH", Gene
changed his position to one of Calm Adult Discourse "rather than this Liar
Liar pants on fire nonsense".
> Since you seem to have some aspirations to
>becoming an obnoxious net bigot yourself, you can expect the same if you
>keep it up.
If Gene "knew something about morality" -- the item he loudly claimed
distinguishes him from us Nazi sympathizers -- he would recant this.
quir...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
>So what? Teleology and intentionality are regarded as irreducible to
>efficient causation and indispensable to scientific explanation by some
>of the best modern thinkers in evolutionary biology and philosophy of
>mind.
Translation: People use teleology and intentionality to better explain
scientific theories which don't actually include them.
>That makes ethics dependent on science. I see no harm and much
>good in this situation, especially since the reciprocal dependence has
>long been recognized by many scientists.
Translation: I base my ethical theories on the assumption that teleology
and intentionality actually exist within these scientific theories.
"To respect physical nature is foolish; physical nature should be studied
with a view to making it serve human ends as far as possible, but it remains
ethically neither good nor bad." - Bertrand Russell, "What I Believe".
- Tony Q.
Michael Zeleny
::: "Any *essentially* non-fertile sex act is immoral."
:: I stand by that claim.
: So all contraceptive-using sex is immoral, no matter WHO does it.
Only radical surgical means of contraception result in essential
infertility. Like all forms of self-mutilation, they constitute a
willful debasement of one's own body.
: Oral sex is immoral, no matter who practices it.
Not if it is practiced as foreplay during heterosexual intercourse.
: Surely choice is a vector in this all, or do you deny freedom to
: choose pleasurable acts which have no particular purpose except
: the fulfilment of human happiness and nature??
Human nature cannot get fulfilled in sterile pleasure. At least the
heterosexual who chooses to sodomize his partner has the option of
fertile intercourse immediately available with the same partner.
Not so with the homosexual.
Cordially, - Mikhail | Why is it that all those who have become eminent
Zel...@math.ucla.edu | in philosophy or politics or poetry or art
UCLA Philosophy Dept | are clearly of an atrabilious temperament?
Michael Zeleny
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
::::: Translation: He doesn't have a sustainable answer.
:::: There is really no need for you to advertise your obvious ignorance,
:::: exacerbated by a lack of reading comprehension.
::: Translation: I can't answer Tony Quirke, so I'll just add a cute
::: little cop out at the end of this whole message.
:: Does the concept of a term of art have any meaning to you?
: Translation: I can't answer Rod's absolutely correct critique of
: my blathering bullshit.
You are lying. I answered you in the part you elided:
:: Essential
:: properties obtain of necessity in virtue of internal structure. The
:: least possibility of P happening therefore vitiates the claim of the
:: essential impossibility of P. Quirke's preposterous paraphrase of my
:: explanation as readily attests to his blithering stupidity as your
:: elision thereof adverts to your devious dishonesty.
Michael Zeleny
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
::: Since food is necessary for continued existance, and farmers
::: produce food, the Zeleny interpretation of Kant requires that
::: everyone not a farmer is acting immorally.
:: Please forgive me for interfering with your fanciful disclaimers by
:: introducing a factual reminder. Kindly recall that this discussion
:: originates in an attempt to explain Kant's explicit denunciation of
:: homosexuality, which he assimilates to sexual intercourse with
:: animals, recommending castration as an appropriate punishment under
:: the principle of ius talionis.
: Then Kant, IMHO, is wrong.
:
: Of course, I've actually *known* homosexual lovers. I see no difference
: between the quality of their love and my own. Thus, being trained in
: a semi-scientific fashion, I must conclude that homosexual sexual relations
: are no more "animal" than my own.
How can you know that? are you referring to knowledge in the Biblical sense?
:: Now, Kant is not entirely free from prejudice -- for example, he is not
:: fond of Jews, regarding their peculiar ways as an obstacle to the moral
:: progress of mankind.
: Presumably showing that you agree that Kant can be wrong.
Everyone can be wrong. Consider the next sentence, which you
conveniently elided:
:: But since he never countenances any sort of coercion or punishment
:: of a people failing to satisfy his idea of proper religious conduct,
:: it is important to ask why he thinks both appropriate in case of
:: individuals failing to satisfy his idea of proper sexual conduct.
Like many men of his time, Kant goes wildly astray in the domain of
anthropology. Moreover, his ideas of retributive justice are hardly
ours. But I think it is safe to say that he gets the principles of
his moral edifice sufficiently sound to warrant the truth of their
immediaqte conclusions, such as I have drawn in this exchange.
: [Drastically cut]
:: For the application of the moral rule to any social context presupposes
:: an antecedent determination of a rational social order. We may choose
:: a trade if and only if the general maxim of our choice is consistent
:: with the functioning of such order. In particular, our alimentary needs
:: imply an obligation to conduct ourselves in a way conforming to a possible
:: universal law consistent with the production of food, just as our sexual
:: nature implies an obligation to conduct ourselves in a way conforming to a
:: possible universal law consistent with the production of the next
:: generation. In an economy characterized by a division of labor, any
:: productive occupation satisfies this criterion.
: You have just established that, in the case of the moral requirement
: to provide sustenance, the actual moral obligation the individual has
: is modified by the foreseeable consequences of their actions within the
: context of those actions, in this case an economy with division of labour.
:
: I realise that you're still saying there *is* an obligation, but that
: the circumstances modify the actual requirements needed to fill that.
Your mistake is in using empiricist categories in the analysis of a
rationalist argument. In the case of the moral requirement to produce
goods so as to fulfill the needs presupposed by our agency (such as
sustenance, clothing, shelter, power, and so on) the actual moral
obligation incumbent upon the individual must be modified -- not by the
foreseeable consequences of their actions within their context, but by
the causal powers implicit in the structural aspects of their actions as
determined by their context -- in this case an economy dependent upon a
division of labor. The difference arises because the empiricist notion
of causal powers of the act-type P is intrinsically beholden to the
scrutiny of the temporal consequences of all individual occurrences of
the act-tokens of P, whereas the rationalist feels justified in imputing
such causal powers to each particular act-token P on the basis of its
subsumption by the corresponding universal act-type. (Incidentally,
this is why consequentialism is the concomital ethical doctrine of the
modern empiricist, whereas natural law and especially deontology are the
province of the modern rationalist. Since Aquinas preceded Hume, was
able to combine an empiricist epistemology with steadfast adherence to
an Aristotelian variety of natural law.) So your analysis is taking off
in the wrong direction.
:: However, the human nature does not admit of a sexual division of labor.
: Wrong.
:
: The fact that a replacement level of children can arise in a society
: where some breed and some do not directly implies that there can be a
: such a sexual division, between those bringing up children and the rest
: of us.
Though I cannot presume to speak for the Kiwi practices, around these
parts upbringing is decidedly not a sexual act, and our justice system
strives mightily to prevent it from being treated as one.
: I point out that the mere production of children is not the aim. We
: are talking about a whole range of activities, from supplying sperm and
: ova, to carrying and delivering the baby, to clothing, feeding and
: sheltering the child, to educating and socializing it.
You are pointing out that the mere production of children is not "the
aim" -- of what? Kant's discussion of the natural end of sexuality
being the preservation of species can apply only to that part of the
said end entirely implicit in the sexual act as such -- namely, to
conception. As important as it might be to carry and deliver the baby,
to clothe, feed, and shelter the child, or to educate and socialize it,
nothing in the action of Brian pumping away against the hairy buttocks
of Bruce is even remotely relevant to the satisfaction of these duties.
By contrast, the power of human sexuality as such is directly relevant
to human generation; and in choosing their partners in a way essentially
incompatible with the fulfillment of that purpose, both Brian and Bruce
willfully excuse themselves from contributing to the sexual economy of
mankind. The act of homosexual intercourse therefore amounts to a theft
of pleasure concomitant with a potentially generative act, accompanied
by a principled refusal to contribute anything to the task of generation.
: Since the foreseeable consequences of stressing reproduction above all
: else produces a large quantity of dead mothers and children, and a new
: generation of unhealthy savages, these activities are just as, if not more,
: important in producing moral actors than PiV sex.
If you resent generative sex, consider abstaining from it. That would
be much less harmful to others than expressing your resentment by opting
for an essentially sterile form of sexuality.
: Indeed, there is never any problem finding volunteers to indulge in
: PiV sex.
Similarly, an idle parasite might claim that there is never any problem
finding volunteers to indulge in productive labor.
:: This is not just a biological fact grounded in our dissimilarity from a
:: society of ants; it is a fact based in our moral nature as autonomous agents
:: capable of determining and fulfilling our duty without any reference
:: to our inclination.
: If, as I am not inclined to debate, there is a moral duty to produce
: *and raise* children, I apply the principle established above, that the
: actual moral obligation the individual has is modified by the foreseeable
: consequences of their actions within the context of those actions.
The foreseeable consequences of thievery is a stimulus to gainful
employment in law enforcement, criminal justice, jurisprudence, and
insurance. However the act of theft as such is bereft of productive
import. I trust that you are capable of completing the analogy.
: Since the context of sexual action is still that of human society, where
: sufficient children will be *produced* no matter what the sexual activity
: of the individual, there is no obligation to participate in the *production*
: of children, in reproductive sex.
Similarly, since the context of theft is still that of human society,
where sufficient goods will be *produced* no matter what the occupation
of the individual, there seems to be no obligation to participate in the
production of goods, in productive labor. Do you see how ludicrous your
reasoning can get?
: You claim that this is a shrugging off of moral duty onto others. I
: disagree. I claim that this is basing one's choices on empirical observation
: of the world. There is no way the choice to engage in homosexual sex will
: endanger the birthrate in aggregate. Therefore, those engaging in homosexual
: sex do not threaten the birthrate, and thus do not act contrary to the
: circumstances of their own existence, that being that *someone* reproduced.
...therefore, those engaging in theft do not threaten the economy, and
thus do not act contrary to the circumstances of their own existence,
that being that *someone* produced.
: There might very well be an obligation to *support* the production of
: children and the raising of them, but this is also achieved by participation
: in the economy, productive labour, and contributions to tax-funded school
: and medical facilities. An even more direct way to meet this obligation is
: to adopt, something that homosexual couples have already done.
So a thief can be redeemed by paying taxes and contributing to charity.
::: Translation: When people show how stupid my comments are, I refuse to
::: speak on the subject and claim victory.
:: You are mistaken in taking this for an adversarial confrontation. I
:: hurt you not in order to prevail over you, but to open your resentful
:: mind to learning and knowledge.
: You are not my teacher, Zeleny. I do not respect you, I do not respect
: the way you apply your learning, I do not respect your claim to honesty.
: Don't flatter yourself.
You are the one flattering yourself, in assuming that your respect matters.
:: It is customary to teach sword skills by hitting the pupil on the head
:: with a bamboo stick.
: Somehow, someone so obsessed with that which they despise seems pretty
: far away from Zen teaching.
I am a Jewish philosopher, not a Japanese monk. Consider the precedents
recorded in the books of the Prophets.
:: With any luck, you will walk away with more than a bruised ego.
: Likewise. Mu.
In view of your character and residence, "Baa" would be more appropriate.
quir...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
> quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:
>> By your own logic, Bruce and Natasha (or even Michael and whoever might
>>be unlucky enough to occupy the same bed)
>You know, Tony, normally I prefer to stay out of Michael's various
>Usenet forays, [...] But I do not appreciate my bed, and my own person,
>being gratuitiously dragged bodily into a discussion just so you could
>vent a bit of your no-doubt well-stocked spleen.
Pardon me, where did I insult you ?
I insulted Zeleny.
>> (*) "Your" being a generic term derived from Michael's post as above. If
>>used as a personal term, referring specifically to Michael, I confess that
>>it may very well be possible that he results from anal sex.
>You are doing far too good a job of bringing to mind the last resorts
>of a drowning man. I recommend taking it easy on those straws.
Perhaps you'd like to give the groups your expert opinion of your
partner's accumulated wit and wisdom ?
I'll provide some examples for you to evaluate:
"Screaming rimadonnas"
"Hapless catamite"
"Commodious rectum"
"Why would that be a consideration when your "lot" is so combustible?
Not that there is any excuse for wasting real sentiment on a group
distinguished by choosing an expression of love as barren and bereft of
issue as the crematoria of Auschwitz. Contempt is the strongest emotion
you merit, and the only one you will ever elicit from me."
"The refractory homosexual is a pathetic freak of nature who, whenever
left to his own tawdry devices, acts as a vivid reminder of the misery
concomitant with willful deviance from the moral ends of mankind."
"A man who strives to overcome his unwholesome inclinations merits the
highest praise. But a refractory homosexual is no different from a
refractory coprophage."
"Since we have been over this ground many times before, I surmise that
the deterioration of your immune system under a perpetual ingress of
foreign proteins has gravely taxed and damaged your modest cognitive
faculties. One often hears of psychosomatic ailments -- but you afford a
living example of a mind irremediably corrupted by abject bodily degradation."
"Nothing like a bureaucratic toady to keep the @?%* flying."
Now, Erin, this is only my humble opinion, admittedly shared by those I've
mentioned him to, but your partner is a foul-mouthed loon obsessed with hatred
for gays.
In short, he's made his own bed. If you don't like to see him lying in it,
that's *your* problem, not ours.
- Tony Q
quir...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
>ga...@umanitoba.ca (Norman R. Gall) writes:
>: What makes a sex act 'fertile'?
>Conception.
So every single time you have sex, you ejaculate where conception is
a possibility ?
>: Sex acts aren't able to bear offspring,
>: organisms are. Even in the most figurative interpretation of 'fertile'
>: (fruitful) we are left to ask what fruitful means... what are the fruits
>: of a sex act? Semen (for men)? Orgasm? A sore wrist?
>Offspring.
So you don't consider love, affection or play to be valid reasons for
sex in and of themselves ?
Uh-huh.
- Tony Q.
quir...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
>cms...@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Caitlin Mackay Shaw) writes:
>: Hypothetical situation: lesbian couple has a supply of frozen sperm.
>: Every morning they get up and do the turkey-baster thing. Is it moral
>: or immoral for them to have sex?
>Sperm comes from testicles, which are attached to a man. It follows
>that your lesbian couple is using some man as mere means to their end.
So ?
The only "moral" goal of sex, according to you, is the possibility of
reproduction. It follows that *you* use claims of love or affection in
pursuit of the same end.
- Tony Q.
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
>:: The application of the moral rule to any social context presupposes an
>:: antecedent determination of a rational social order.
>: Such as a social order which includes a sufficient number of people
>: producing children, regardless of the non-reproductive choices of others ?
>This is not a permissible assumption, since there is nothing in the
>social order as such to ensure the production of even a single child.
Oh dear, you *still* haven't managed to cope with my little analogy.
There's nothing in the economic order as such to ensure the production of
even a single grain of wheat. Therefore, if we cannot leave reproductive sex
to others, we also cannot leave food production to others. Time to grab your
overalls and mosey on down to the farm, Zeleny.
We can observe the empirical results of the working of the economy, and
establish rules of thumb (such as Adam Smith's Invisible Hand), and thus
predict with an extremely high rate of probability that food will continue
to be manufactured.
We can also observe the empirical results of population trends and
establish rules of thumb (such as the correlation between women's education
levels and reproductive choices), and thus predict with an extremely high
rate of probability that children will continue to be born.
Therefore the application of your musing on moral duties to the present
social context must be modified by observing a rational social order which
will continue to provide children at a remarkably predictable rate.
Therefore there is no moral duty for any one person to reproduce, or
engage in reproductive sex.
>: I point out that the general maxim for the choice of non-reproductive
>: sex is not "have non-reproductive sex", but "exercise free choice between
>: non-reproductive sex and reproductive sex as you will". This is empirically
>: proven to be consistent with the replenishment of society.
>So is gratuitous homicide, as witness the evening news.
Thank you for evading my point.
Gratuitous homicide cannot be condemned on the grounds that it prevents
the reproduction of the next generation. Neither can consensual adult
homosexuality as chosen by those who desire it.
Gratuitous homocide can be condemned on the grounds of violating people's
rights. Consensual adult homosexuality cannot.
>: It would appear that homosexuality is not immoral.
>You are not getting any smarter.
And you're getting *less* credible.
It would appear that homosexuality is not immoral.
- Tony Q.
---
Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand (email for phone no)
"Consider this a disjunctive prediction -- Quirke will end up humbled
and respectful or outed and obstreperous." - Michael Zeleny, 6 Mar 1995,
on failing to believe that a straight could disrespect his views.
Rod Swift
>The act of homosexual intercourse therefore amounts to a theft
>of pleasure concomitant with a potentially generative act, accompanied
>by a principled refusal to contribute anything to the task of generation.
Are you going to start playing "bedroom cop" to stop such acts of
theft?
Is this part of your messianic complex?
>If you resent generative sex, consider abstaining from it. That would
>be much less harmful to others than expressing your resentment by opting
>for an essentially sterile form of sexuality.
I don't *resent* heterosexual sex. I just don't particularly
find it to be compatible with my inherent nature, and hence I do
not practice it for *that* reason -- not one of resentment.
And, to take a leaf out of your book... If you resent
pleasurable consensual homosexual sex, consider abstaining from it.
That would be much less harmful to others than expressing your
resentment by opting for an essentially stupid blather over the
Usenet.
>I am a Jewish philosopher, not a Japanese monk. Consider the precedents
>recorded in the books of the Prophets.
You're the type of Jew that gave Hitler some justification for
his genocide, I'm sure.
>In view of your character and residence, "Baa" would be more appropriate.
Been talking to your animals again, Zeleny? You know, your dog
that consents to marriage with you? Did he tell you what to
write? When will you send us tapes and pictures of your dog
oracle?
Rod
--
| ... ..... | E-mail to: be...@metronet.com | ******* |
Michael Zeleny
:::: The application of the moral rule to any social context presupposes an
:::: antecedent determination of a rational social order.
::: Such as a social order which includes a sufficient number of people
::: producing children, regardless of the non-reproductive choices of others ?
:: This is not a permissible assumption, since there is nothing in the
:: social order as such to ensure the production of even a single child.
: Oh dear, you *still* haven't managed to cope with my little analogy.
Remarkable how you can claim this so unselfconsciously.
: There's nothing in the economic order as such to ensure the production of
: even a single grain of wheat. Therefore, if we cannot leave reproductive sex
: to others, we also cannot leave food production to others. Time to grab your
: overalls and mosey on down to the farm, Zeleny.
Stop. Right. Here.
There's nothing in the economic order as such to ensure the production
of even a single grain of wheat -- except for the laws of supply and
demand. As long as your labor results in production valued by the
market, you are guaranteed reciprocal access to goods of similar value
in exchange for its fruits. Looking at this from another angle: the
production of any exchange value stimulates the market economy to
enable the satisfaction of every economic need. Conformant with the
stipulation of a rational social order, these inferences are all
grounded in nomological connections salient to productive labor as
such, rather than mere predictions with an extremely high rate of
probability. Contrast: there is nothing in the possible outcome of
buggery, as distinguished from orthogenital intercourse, to connect
with the emergence of the next generation. Moreover, there is nothing
in the possible outcome of homosexual behavior as such, as
distinguished from heterosexual behavior as such, to connect with the
emergence of the next generation. Therefore, just as *only* our
personal involvement in the general economic production of goods
enables us to leave the production of any particular goods to others,
no amount of sexually *sterile* practice can warrant us to leave
reproductive sex to others.
: We can observe the empirical results of the working of the economy, and
: establish rules of thumb (such as Adam Smith's Invisible Hand), and thus
: predict with an extremely high rate of probability that food will continue
: to be manufactured.
Rationality is not comprised of rules of thumb. Rational inferences
can proceed only in accordance with laws. The laws of economics
ensure that supply meets demand, and that having exchange value at
one's disposal enables one to meet his demand.
: We can also observe the empirical results of population trends and
: establish rules of thumb (such as the correlation between women's education
: levels and reproductive choices), and thus predict with an extremely high
: rate of probability that children will continue to be born.
Contrast: though the success of your prediction of future production
of food is sustained by the incidence of productive labor, the success
of your prediction of future reproduction of mankind is not merely
disconnected from, but actually subverted by, the incidence of
homosexual sex.
: Therefore the application of your musing on moral duties to the present
: social context must be modified by observing a rational social order which
: will continue to provide children at a remarkably predictable rate.
You have no grasp of rationality.
: Therefore there is no moral duty for any one person to reproduce, or
: engage in reproductive sex.
The contrary has been shown.
::: I point out that the general maxim for the choice of non-reproductive
::: sex is not "have non-reproductive sex", but "exercise free choice between
::: non-reproductive sex and reproductive sex as you will". This is empirically
::: proven to be consistent with the replenishment of society.
:: So is gratuitous homicide, as witness the evening news.
: Thank you for evading my point.
Your point has been made in ignorance. The maxim of free choice is
indeterminate of behavior, and hence indeterminable of its moral
merit.
: Gratuitous homicide cannot be condemned on the grounds that it prevents
: the reproduction of the next generation. Neither can consensual adult
: homosexuality as chosen by those who desire it.
Prevention is too strong a term. But each act mitigates the
reproduction of the next generation in its own way.
: Gratuitous homocide can be condemned on the grounds of violating people's
: rights. Consensual adult homosexuality cannot.
Explain the rational ground of the rights violated in the former case.
::: It would appear that homosexuality is not immoral.
:: You are not getting any smarter.
: And you're getting *less* credible.
Just as buggery makes no contribution to sexual generation, stupidity
makes no contribution to the assessment of intellectual merit.
: It would appear that homosexuality is not immoral.
The contrary has been shown.
Michael Zeleny
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:: quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:
: [One will note that quote marks are used to indicate definitions I do not
: necessarily agree with]
::: Anal sex is a sexual act unto itself, just like oral sex or mutual
::: masturbation. They cannot be considered "foreplay" if they lead to (male)
::: orgasm.
:: Lovely. Erin instructs me to inquire whether or not such acts can be
:: considered foreplay if they lead to female orgasm only.
: I point out that *you* are the one who wishes to establish that a sexual
: act can only be considered "moral" if it involves the chance of reproduction.
: As such, a "sexual act" for the purposes of possible reproduction logically
: follows as "any sequence of events culminating in male ejaculation", with
: your "moral" sexual act being that where this occurs within the vagina.
Correct.
: Inform Erin that, under the logic you are expousing, any activity she
: may enjoy is merely an attempt by you to get her to allow you to act
: "morally", and that you do not provide her pleasure for it's own sake.
You are confusing issues of morality with issues of psychological motivation.
: If either you or her wish to claim that considerations of love or
: affection affect your lovemaking, it logically follows from your thesis
: that these are irrelevant. The be all and end all of all sexual activity
: between you and her, according to your statements, is *only* you coming
: inside her.
Moral irrelevance is not tantamount to irrelevance simpliciter.
::: I requote your words:
::: "So Kant tells you that, since you owe your very provenance as an agent
::: to a single fertile act of sexual intercourse, any necessarily infertile
::: form of sexual intercourse cannot be willed to be an instance of a lawlike
::: choice, in so far as its instantiation at the moment of your conception
::: would have preempted your biological existence as a necessary condition of
::: your current moral deliberation."
::: And to be even clearer:
::: "Any *essentially* non-fertile sex act is immoral."
::: By your own logic, Bruce and Natasha (or even Michael and whoever might
::: be unlucky enough to occupy the same bed) are acting "immorally" if Bruce
::: ejaculates anywhere but in Natasha's vagina.
:: Correct -- though that would be Boris and Natasha, my culturally
:: challenged antipodean friend. But consider how much more depraved
:: it would have been to choose a partner in a way that denied one the
:: option of rectifying his erroneous choice of sexual venue.
: Pardon me, but once the seed is spilled on barren ground, that's it. You
: have wasted the precious opportunity to ejaculate inside a vagina, and are
: therefore acting "immorally". There are no degrees of "depravity" between
: them.
Not so. If pair-bonding has a subsidiary moral value because of its
contribution to reproduction, any action aimed at buttressing existing
reproductively relevant bonds is of moral merit.
: All anal sex, being essentially infertile, is "immoral" according to you.
: Likewise oral sex. The possibility that you may indulge in PiV sex afterwards
: does not mitigate this "immorality" in the slightest. I point out that in
: the above examples, Boris has schtupped both Bruce and Natasha. Is his
: "immoral" act with Bruce mitigated by his later "moral" act with Natasha ?
Contrast acts occurring within a given fertile union with those
occurring without its boundaries. If anything, the latter are
deleterious to its stability, albeit perhaps not necessarily so.
::: Care to explain why you contradicted yourself, Zeleny ?
:: What contradiction do you have in mind?
: Shown. The "immorality" of anal sex derives from ejaculating anywhere
: but in the vagina, and therefore is "immoral" whether performed on a man
: or on a woman.
You are confused by the conclusion, because you have failed to attend
to its rationale. The immorality of anal sex wholly derives from its
necessary failure to make any positive contribution to reproduction.
Given that reproduction is aided by family cohesion, the sterility of
nonorthogenital intercourse occurring between reproductive partners
may be mitigated by its contribution to the durability of their union.
One economic analogy is afforded by the company picnic, which has no
direct relevance to the constituted goals of the corporate body, but
makes an important indirect contribution thereto by dint of increasing
overall corporate cohesion. Though I am not entirely confident of
this line of reasoning, it seems worthy of further consideration.
:: You have just described the standard Jewish account of what constitutes
:: permissible sex between man and wife -- it does not matter where you get
:: started, as long as you finish in the right place. What are you, some
:: kind of Judeophobe?
: Not I. The logical consequence of your own argument is that the standard
: Jewish account of what constitutes permissible sex between man and wife
: must be "immoral".
You are either blitheringly stupid or utterly dishonest. Once again,
the Jewish tradition mandates vaginal ejaculation, while countenancing
any form of preliminary genital deployment.
: It would appear that it is *you* condemning Jewish tradition.
If you have a shred of intellectual integrity, you will retract this lie.
The contrary has been shown.
: One *does* hope you don't add to your hypocrisy and decide to get married
: within that tradition.
The more I entertain the possibility, the more appealing it seems.
: - Tony Q.
Michael Zeleny
::: What makes a sex act 'fertile'?
:: Conception.
: So every single time you have sex, you ejaculate where conception is
: a possibility ?
Not so fast. I have answered all of your personal questions without
getting a single answer in return. If you want to continue along these
lines, you will have to reciprocate first by revealing facts relevant
to your personal motivation in pursuing this argument.
Have you ever buggered a man, or been buggered by a man?
Have you ever sucked cock, or had yourself blown by another man?
Have you ever had sex with a sheep, a cow, a horse, a dog, a dingo, an
emu, a wombat, or any other wild or domestic animal not of your own
species?
Feel free to volunteer any other information you may deem apposite.
Please be precise and specific.
::: Sex acts aren't able to bear offspring,
::: organisms are. Even in the most figurative interpretation of 'fertile'
::: (fruitful) we are left to ask what fruitful means... what are the fruits
::: of a sex act? Semen (for men)? Orgasm? A sore wrist?
:: Offspring.
: So you don't consider love, affection or play to be valid reasons for
: sex in and of themselves ?
I consider them perfectly valid, but not morally relevant. I am not
enough of a philistine to require a belief that my emotional diversions
contribute to the salvation of the universe.
: Uh-huh.
:
Michael Zeleny
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:: cms...@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Caitlin Mackay Shaw) writes:
::: Hypothetical situation: lesbian couple has a supply of frozen sperm.
::: Every morning they get up and do the turkey-baster thing. Is it moral
::: or immoral for them to have sex?
:: Sperm comes from testicles, which are attached to a man. It follows
:: that your lesbian couple is using some man as mere means to their end.
: So ?
So they are vitiating his agency by disregarding his autonomy.
This is a big no-no.
: The only "moral" goal of sex, according to you, is the possibility of
: reproduction. It follows that *you* use claims of love or affection in
: pursuit of the same end.
This is an interesting point, which receives its answer in the docrine
of Right. The use of another person as sexual means is mitigated by
the mutual alienation of the parties in a marriage contract. Allow me
to explain:
According to Kant, "_Sexual union_ (_commercium sexuale_) is the
reciprocal use that one human being makes of the sexual organs and
capacities of another (_usus membrorum et facultatum sexualium
alterius_)." (Here and in the sequel, the relevant texts are _The
Doctrine of Right_, Part I, Chapter II, Section III ("On Rights to
Persons Akin to Rights to Things"), Title I ("Marriage Right"),
Paragraphs 24-7, and _The Doctrine of Virtue_, Part I, Book I, Chapter
I ("Man's Duty to Himself as an Animal Being"), Article II, Paragraph
7, and passim, in the complete translation of _The Metaphysics of
Morals_ by Mary Gregor, Cambridge University Press, 1991, and assorted
parts of the _Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals_, as translated
by James W. Ellington, Hackett, 1981. All references are given to the
original pagination, as reproduced in both texts.) This reciprocal
use "takes place either in accordance with mere animal _nature_ (_vaga
libido, venus volgivaga, fornicatio_) or in accordance with
_principle_." The latter is possible only in the state of marriage,
defined as "the union of two people of opposite sexes for the lifelong
possession of each other's sexual attributes." The stated moral need
for matrimony, lifelong or otherwise, is wholly independent from the
end of nature in begetting and bringing up children, which Kant
acknowledges as a likely end of human sexuality and the inclinations
that motivate it, and so need not be coeval or compossible with its
realization -- for otherwise marriage could not endure in the absence
of child-bearing and rearing. At this point, we may feel entitled to
inquire about the rationale for insisting on marriage as an end in
itself, and the motivation for its restriction to heterosexual
couplings, in the absence of the natural end of procreation. Kant's
answer to the former question is as follows. In course of the natural
use of the sexual organs of one sex by another, the former gives
itself up to the latter for the sake of _enjoyment_. In so doing, a
human being contravenes the Right of humanity in his own person by
making himself into a mere thing. Kant goes on to insist that man
cannot make such use of _another_ person to get mere animal pleasure
apart from a special contractual limitation, establishing the
permanent right, whereby two persons put each other under total mutual
obligation:
There is only one condition under which this is possible:
while one person is acquired by the other _as if it were a
thing_, the one who is acquired acquires the other in turn;
for in this way each reclaims itself and restores its
personality. But acquiring a member of a human being is at
the same time acquiring the whole being, since a person is
an absolute unity. Hence it is not only admissible for the
sexes to surrender to and accept each other for enjoyment
under the condition of marriage, but it is possible for them
to do so _only_ under this condition. (MM278)
But if it is taken as permissible for a spouse to have a tennis game
with friends, why is it not likewise permissible for a spouse to have
an affair? As long as nobody gets pregnant or contracts any diseases,
what _is_ the difference between a tennis game and an affair? Our
question can be formulated more precisely, given that Kant would say
that for one, as a moral being (_homo noumenon_), to use another person
as a physical being (_homo phaenomenon_) as mere means to an end is
wrong. So why would the moral injunction apply to an adulterous
affair, but not to a game of tennis? In order to address this puzzle,
we must return to the wellspring of Kant's moral philosophy. For Kant,
"a categorical (unconditional) imperative is one that represents an
action as objectively necessary and makes it necessary not indirectly,
through the representation of some _end_ that can be attained by the
action, but through the mere representation of this action itself (its
form), and hence directly." (MM222) In its most general form, the
Categorical Imperative reads: "Act as if the maxim of your action were
to become through your will a universal law of nature." (G421) Here,
nature is explicitly taken in the widest possible sense, as the active
corpus of universal causal laws. So far, it seems that the principle
is so loose as to justify any conceivable course of action -- for
clearly the Hobbesian conception of the state of nature as a "Warre of
all against all" admits of a nearly unlimited range of self-consistent
active willing. But Kant further argues that the very personhood of
rational beings depends on their being marked out by nature as ends in
themselves. Thus by accommodating this aspect of his conception of a
person Kant arrives at another formulation of the same principle, which
he claims to be equivalent to the above -- "Act so as to treat
humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as
an end and never as means only." (G429)
In the above application, the formula of the end in itself seems to
place greater strictures on moral conduct, ruling out, in accordance
with the above considerations, any possibility of sexual intercourse
outside of an enduring contractual arrangement involving total mutual
alienation of the participants. But we note that this argument
depends on an equivocation. On one hand, it involves what we may call
personal identity, or the identity of a man as a _homo noumenon_, the
Cartesian _res cogitans_, which, as we often neglect to add, is also
the _res dubitans, affirmans, negans, pauca intelligens, multa
ignorans, volens, nolens, imaginans etiam & sentiens_. On the other
hand, in construing the same man as an object of base "animal
pleasure", it involves the material identity of a human being as a
_res corporeas_, or the Kantian _homo phaenomenon_, a concrete
physical organism. Put the two together, and you have that allegedly
contingent, and admittedly fragile unity that Pascal calls _un roseau
pensant_, the thinking reed. But it remains unclear, to what extent
Kant's conception of what is involved in animal pleasure -- namely,
the fulfillment of a desire obviously appertaining to the _res
cogitans_, but supposedly having as its aim solely the corresponding
_res corporeas_ -- furnishes an adequate link between these two types
of human identity. For if it does, then the pleasure is certainly not
_merely_ animal; but if it does not, then acquiring a member of a
human being (_res corporeas_) is certainly _not_ tantamount to
acquiring the whole being, since as Descartes observes on several
occasions, unlike the human soul, the human organism is _not_ an
absolute unity. But for Kant, the noumenal self clearly has priority,
in the sense of bearing the responsibility for the comportment of its
phenomenal counterpart.
So Kant continues: "Hence it is not only admissible for the sexes to
surrender to and accept each other for enjoyment under the condition
of marriage, but it is possible for them to do so _only_ under this
condition." To extend this reasoning to other kinds of enjoyment, the
casual game of tennis appears out of question; instead, one would have
to commit oneself inalienably to an exclusive and enduring ludic
partnership with one's opponent. More interestingly, by the same
lights, it would seem well nigh impossible for a Kantian agent to get
a shoeshine in good conscience, without alienating himself to the
shoe-blacker, inasmuch as in receiving his services, he accepts his
brush-wielding member for his enjoyment. Moreover, given that a
shoemaker in the final analysis acquires his products by alienating
them from the state of nature and adjoining them to his political
person of a proprietor, it would seem equally impossible for our hero
to get mere "mercantile pleasure" by engaging in any consensual act of
casual trade, at least until we can figure out a way to disentangle
his acquisitive social body from its aforementioned physical and
mental counterparts. By now, we may feel the error of our
interpretive ways. Where might we have gone wrong?
At first blush, we can draw a line between sex and other forms of
ludic commerce along the line of Kant's own emphasis, by insisting on
the difference in the respective aspects of physical intimacy,
conditioned by the direct and unmediated use of the organs of another
for the sake of _enjoyment_. But to say this much would not suffice;
for we must also specify the particular aspect of this intimate
enjoyment that infringes on human autonomy. We may do just that, by
resorting to assistance from Georges Bataille, on the principle that a
more facile and superficial writer will often be of help in clarifying
the thought of an obscure and profound genius. According to Bataille,
there exists an intimate connection between eroticism and violence:
violence inheres in eroticism because the latter represents a
paradigmatic example of an encounter with the Other, requiring a
fundamental transcendence of the self, a bridging of the essential gap
that separates two physically, intellectually, and morally
discontinuous beings. (See _L'e'rotisme_, Introduction, in _Oeuvres
compl`etes_, Paris: Gallimard, 1970--88, X, pp. 19-20; compare also:
"L'e'rotisme ouvre `a la mort. La mort ouvre `a la ne'gation de la
dure'e individuelle. Pourrions-nous, sans violence inte'rieure,
assumer une ne'gation qui nous am`ene `a la limite de tout le
possible?" -- ibid., p. 29.) For such beings, any attempt at forming,
however temporarily, a common continuity of desire and fulfillment, is
tantamount to a rejection of the sovereignty of their selves. And
moreover, this process must be accompanied with agonistic violence by
virtue of its nature. For we regard ourselves as individuals, moral
agents, beings that are causally independent from the world to the
extent of our agency, ultimate ends in the world of servile,
utilitarian means. (This Kantian theme is developed by Bataille in
the unfinished third part of _La part maudite_. See _La
souverainete'_, Premi`ere partie, I, in op.cit., VIII, pp. 247ff.) To
this extent, and inasmuch as we are also moral beings, we are doubly
separated from the rest of the universe, sovereign both in the moral
and the somatic plane; in Spinoza's language, each of us constitutes a
dominion within a dominion. Others come to influence us, we come to
influence them; yet each of us remains separate, a bastion of
independent will and desire.
Yet time comes when we wish to transcend this state of independence,
by attempting to give up the control of our tidy little microcosm, to
remove the wall separating us from the Other, to do exactly that,
which all our previous experience has conditioned us to avoid; and
worse, to deliberately renounce the hard-won sovereignty of our will.
For our capacity to act does not come to us by itself. We must
struggle in order to develop it; we must insist on deciding when
others are all too willing to oblige us by acting on our behalf; we
must assert ourselves as free beings time after time. To stop this
struggle, if only for a moment, we have to perform the greatest
sacrifice imaginable, the sacrifice of the Self. Sacrifices are
violent and agonistic. So is eroticism. (See Bataille, op.cit., X,
pp.98-104.)
In this way, the phenomenology of erotic commerce differs from that of
its economic counterpart. Furthermore, while the economic obligations
arise only within the context of a civil society, sexual obligations
apply to the agent not only in virtue of his extrinsic situation, but
also because of his intrinsic nature. The fundamental core of human
morality of sexual behavior supervenes on the inflexible facts of our
biological nature, whereas the totality of human morality of economic
comportment depends on our flexible and malleable social arrangements.
This observation concludes the solution to our puzzle.
For more along these lines, see Barbara Herman's recent paper on Kant
and marriage (sorry, I do not know the publication venue).
Cordially, - Mikhail | Why is it that all those who have become eminent
Zel...@math.ucla.edu | in philosophy or politics or poetry or art
UCLA Philosophy Dept | are clearly of an atrabilious temperament?
________________________________________________________________________
|"Fuck your ass with broken glass!" -- Gene Ward Smith| don't|
|"You're the type of Jew that gave Hitler some justification for| tread|
|his genocide, I'm sure." -- Rod Swift| on me|
|_______________________________________________________________|______|
Michael Zeleny
ku...@widder.harvard.edu (Tal Kubo) writes:
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
::: I missed the beginning of this latest caustophilic episode,
::: but it looks like the usual suspects are assembled: our
::: mutual friend; one obstreperous Antipodean; the vitreocopulationist
::: Midwestern Hag sniping from the peanut gallery; and one santimonious
::: emotional propagandist to bring in the Nazis.
:: You may have missed the beginning because it transpired in
:: alt.law-enforcement, the home of my spare time career choice.
:: Since Bruce Garrett has seemingly taken it upon himself to
:: maintain the official transcript of my appalling heterosexism,
: "Context" is his middle name! There is something touching and
: devotional, though, about his archival scrivening.
Indeed, I am very much flattered by the selfless dedication of my
epicene interlocutors. It appears that their refusal to saddle
themselves with the burden of a family has left them with plenty of
time for personal apologetics in the matter of their sexual choice.
:: he might be able to assist you in catching up with the earlier
:: pre-philosophical screeds.
: I'm eagerly awaiting the next installment of The Official Transcript Of
: Virulent Homophobia. Dollars to donuts that Herr Garrett will cough it
: up at least once before this discussion is over.
Which flavor would you prefer? I predict that his transient attention
span will not measure up to your challenge.
:::: Perhaps it's about time I invoke the Nazis (or have they been invoked
:::: already?) so that the thread may die a sudden but graceful demise.
::: See above. The B.G. has pre-empted you.
:: As did Gene Ward "I'm What Genders?" Smith. Shall we issue a roster
:: call for the names of Nazi sympathizers so certified by the Midwestern
:: Hag?
: As immigrants to these shores, we are subject to deportation for Nazi
: activities. Now that we've been outed, I'd like to know what legal entity
: will handle the impending Speech Crimes Tribunal: the Hague? the United
: Nations?? the Harvard Ad Board???
As far as I can tell, only the activities antecedent to naturalization
would qualify us for deportation.
:: Aside from the two of us, I know of the title bestowed upon Mike
:: Morris and Michael Feld. Are there any others?
: Other than M^2, that makes it two Yids and an Israeli on the Nazi List.
: The good Doctor's credibility towers once more.
The Midwestern Hag is an equal opportunity epithet-slinger.
::: Personally, I'm waiting for T.Q. to post his test scores. True, he is
::: obsessing over your email privileges, but it will take more than that
::: to follow in the footsteps of John Donald Collier.
:: Admittedly, Quirke got off to a good start by complimenting himself
:: for sucking up to "one of the ten senior civil servants in the entire
:: country". Nothing like a bureaucratic toady to keep the shit flying.
: Alas, I missed that. If Herr Garrett would be so kind as to also
: be Geheimrat Quirke's copyist, such lapses could be avoided.
I quote:
_____________________________________________________________________________
In article <3jehi6$m...@golem.wcc.govt.nz> quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz writes:
: The head of the Ministry I'm on contract to, one of the ten senior civil
: servants in the entire country, has complimented me on my performance, is
: willing to put this in writing, wants to meet with me on Thursday so I can
: recommend a course of action on the current project, and has received a
: recommendation from my boss that the Ministry attempt to retain me permanently.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Admittedly, this is not nearly as good as the following gems:
_______________________________________________________________
"Fuck your ass with broken glass!" -- Gene Ward Smith
"You're the type of Jew that gave Hitler some justification for
his genocide, I'm sure." -- Rod Swift
_______________________________________________________________
: Cheers from the PRC, where we are enjoying LA-like weather thanks
: to global warming.
Does Jaemin know that you are posting to soc.singles?
Gene Ward Smith
> >Ah, an expert. Perhaps *you* would care to expound the perversion
> >function Perv(p)? Clearly, you think Perv(0.15), whatever it imay be, is
> ^^^^^^^
> >still low enough not to count as perverse, with p measured in terms of
> >couple-years.
> Of course, Gene is lying. I don't recall Erin ever taking any
> position, in this newsgroup or anywhere else, on "perversity" of
> sexual practices, let alone its relation to contraception.
Clearly, Tal is a moron. I did not say that she did.
This referred to an an earlier posting, about Zeleny's ideas, and hence
made reference to Zeleny's notions of what was perverse, not Erin's.
> That he takes an elementary factual correction as an indicator of bigotry
> once again attests to his systematic inability to distinguish between
> "homophobia" and non-endorsement of his own net.position.
When you are smart enough to figure out what the grown-ups are saying
to each other, you may join the conversation. Until then, shut the
fuck up.
> >Why? Your creepy, vile, obnoxious friend has deliberately spread his hate
> >and lies all over the net, making inquiries into his sexual habits quite
> >legitimate and resonable.
> "Lies"? You mean "disagreement with moi". A "nonstandard" usage to
> say the least.
He's always telling lies. I've caught him in a few about Boswell and
Plato quite recently. In any case, his whole pretence of coming to his
conclusions on the basis of rational inquiry is in itself a lie, and is
characteristic of the crap spewed by a bigot.
> In a recent thread on another newsgroup, Gene accused another
> poster of dishonesty. When that poster then exposed Gene's own
> confabulation of the initial context of their prior discussion,
> concluding that (and I quote) "GENE IS LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH", Gene
> changed his position to one of Calm Adult Discourse "rather than this Liar
> Liar pants on fire nonsense".
Oh, please. Are you talking about your dear friend Dan Bernstein, whom
*you* call a liar? Should I perhaps cross-post this thread to sci.math?
Now *you* are engaging in obvious lies, as anyone who may be a reader of
sci.math will know. What a matched set of vomit-bags you and Mikhail are.
Bernstein was wrong. You *know* that. You *said so* at the time. Other
posters noted and commented on the fact that Bernstein, as usual, was full
of it. And my Calm Adult Discourse was simply an attempt at Calm Adult
Discourse, something I know better than to waste on you. It is you who
are a liar.
> > Since you seem to have some aspirations to
> >becoming an obnoxious net bigot yourself, you can expect the same if you
> >keep it up.
> If Gene "knew something about morality" -- the item he loudly claimed
> distinguishes him from us Nazi sympathizers -- he would recant this.
Fine. Unlike you, who has repeatedly proven that he has aspirations to be
a slimy bigot in Zeleny's mold, Erin does not. She *does* seem to believe
in heterosexual privilege, as you do, and does not see any precise
reciprocity between Zeleny insulting people for their love life, which she
seems to regards as a peccadillo, and people failing to respect that
sinister heterosexual lifestyle we hear so much about.
What you should explain, if in fact it is not utterly beyond your
abilities, is why *this* upsets you and Mikhail's swill does not. Care to
answer? I've heard this whine from you before, creep--it is sooo awful
if someone insults you or Mikey, but just fine if they insult a mere fag.
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
>: If morality arises before social institutions such as capitalist trade,
>: then you must consider the morality of not farming sans a capitalist
society.
>Not at all. While the moral proscription against murder and buggery
>arises independently of any social institution, and applies equally
>well to man in the state of nature, the duty to work depends on the
>social organization of labor, and varies depending on the functioning
>of the relevant institutions.
Oh dear, you *are* becoming less and less credible as time goes on. Let's
count the errors in the above paragraph, shall we ?
ERROR 1
"While the moral proscription against murder [...] arises independently of
any social institution [...]"
Murder is usually defined roughly as unlawful killing. The law being a
social institution, murder is a null concept before it arises. If you wish
to distort the meaning of "murder" to also include immoral killing, your
statement would therefore be built on the assertion "There is a moral
proscription against immoral killing", hardly a classic example of wisdom.
ERROR 2
"While the moral proscription against [...] buggery[...]"
I'm sorry, but as the continuing debate shows, you have yet to prove to
the rest of us that there *is* a moral proscription against anal
intercourse.
"Quoting your own words does not make them more authoritative." - Zeleny.
ERROR 3
" [...] the duty to work [...] varies depending on the functioning of
the relevant institutions."
We have been discussing farming in a capitalist economy. The existence
of farms in such an economy is not an institution, but an empirical rule
of thumb. If you wish to argue that the near certainty that farms will
continue to operate in a capitalist economy renders them an "institution",
we must also conclude that the near certainty that children will continue
to be born in our societies renders reproduction an "institution".
My, my, my. I guess this goes to show the difference between learning
and education.
>: If this morality is to be altered by the fact of a capitalist society,
>: meaning that you no longer are obligated to provide food for yourself and
>: the next generation due to the existance of farmers, then you cannot hold
>: that the morality of unfertile sex cannot equally be altered due to the
>: existance of people willing and able to breed far in excess of replacement
>: numbers.
>Once again, the issue of replacement numbers is a red herring.
Not at all. I will provisionally accept a moral duty to help, or at the
very least not oppose, the continuing existence of the human species.
>You have an imperfect duty to continue your lineage because you arise in a
>continuous chain of human generations.
I'm sorry, but you failed to demonstrate this to the rest of us. If *I*
do not wish to become a parent, and my not becoming a parent does not
endanger the survival of humanity, then I do not recognise any moral duty
to become one.
Moral actors will continue to exist. None will carry my particular genes,
but that's not my problem.
Again, you are attempting proof by assertion.
"Quoting your own words does not make them more authoritative." - Zeleny.
>You have a perfect duty not to exercise your generative powers in a way
>essentially incompatible with the continuation of your lineage.
Oh my, *more* errors.
ERROR 1
I have no duty to continue *my* lineage, even should I desire the continued
existence of moral actors.
ERROR 2
Non-reproductive sex is not essentially incompatible with the continuation
of my lineage. Failing to indulge in *reproductive* sex is. The average human
being has far more sexual encounters than they do children.
>: Are gays immoral for not having PiV sex in a world full of parents ?
>Yes.
Pardon me, I should have phrased the question better.
Can gays be considered immoral for not having PiV sex in a world full of
parents using a system of morality which is actually based on the real
world ?
>: Are you moral despite foisting the obligation to feed yourself onto
>: others ?
>Feeding oneself is a biological necessity. Providing food for oneself
>is a social undertaking.
Indeed ?
Why should the necessity of providing food for oneself be considered
within the social context, and the necessity to procreate and raise a
new generation be considered an individual duty ?
I quote your own words:
"Universal legislation of the maxim of homosexual intercourse is
incompatible with the genesis of men, and therefore incompatible with human
agency."
This is as equally irrelevant as the observation that universal legislation
of the maxim of studying philosophy is incompatible with man's survival, and
therefore incompatible with human agency.
Again: Why should the necessity of providing food for oneself be
considered within the social context, and the necessity to procreate and
raise a new generation be considered an individual duty ?
>Thank you for concerning yourself with my occupation. I am indeed a
>supernumerary graduate student in philosophy at UCLA. However I am
>not fond of the Humnet facilities, and prefer to use other means for
>Internet access. I have this Math department account because my
>company does editorial and technical work for the academia. If you
>need technical editing, typesetting, or multimedia development,
>inquire within.
Gosh, I notice you seem to have forgotten to answer a few questions.
Allow me to quote your words: "[M]y occupation supports and sustains the
farmers in virtue of playing a productive part in the economy."
The questions again:
Should we get a farmer's opinion as to the "support" and "sustainance"
they get from philosophy students ?
If all the philosophy students died tomorrow, what would the effect on
food production be ? If the answer is "none", then you do not participate
in providing food, as you are morally obligated to.
One assumes that you were a full-time philosophy student at one stage.
Should you wish to argue that this was not immoral because of your current
productive status, please tell us why a single act of homosexual sex is
immoral as of that moment, regardless of the number of children either
partner have or will have ?
>You presume to discuss American law without any awareness of its
>provenance and justification, never mind the difference between criminal
>and civil litigation standards.
Uh-huh.
From an earlier post:
TQ: "If you're unfamiliar with the origins of legal definitions under US
law, can I suggest you start with the US Constitution ?"
MZ: "Nice going. Would you care to identify the origins of the US
constitution?"
TQ: "Your text books [...] have no application when discussing the law."
MZ: "The hazy fiction in question, as represented in the writings of Locke
and Montesquieu, is historically responsible for the original content of the
US Constitution."
Which part of "discussing the law" did you consider to include "the
writings of Locke and Montesquieu" ?
>In short, you give every indication of being a presumptuous nincompoop.
>It is a rare privilege to expose your debating ineptitude and intellectual
>inadequacy.
One of us is regularly nominated for Kook Of The Month. One of us is in
the net.legends FAQ as a philosopher wannabe. One of us gets dismissed as
an obsessive nutter due to his history on rec.arts.books.
>Everyone incurs an *imperfect* duty to engender some progeny.
I'm sorry, but you failed to demonstrate this to the rest of us. If *I*
do not wish to become a parent, and my not becoming a parent does not
endanger the survival of humanity, then I do not recognise any moral duty
to become one.
"Quoting your own words does not make them more authoritative." - Zeleny.
>Thus it is wrong to act on a maxim of essential non-procreation, just as
>it would be wrong to act on a maxim of essential non-benevolence.
Assumption: I have a moral duty not to oppose the continuing existence
of the human race.
Observation: In choosing not to breed, I do not endanger the human race.
Observation: If everyone made the decision to breed or not to breed as
they desire, the human race would not be endangered. To a large extent, this
is what has happened all through history (given contraception, abortion
and infanticide).
Conclusion: I have no moral duty to breed based on the earlier moral duty.
Conclusion: I have no moral duty to engage in reproductive sex.
Conclusion: I have no moral duty to not engage in non-reproductive sex.
Observation: Zeleny advances a morality claiming to be based on Kant which
states I have a moral duty to not engage in non-reproductive sex based on
the necessity for reproduction as a fact of human existence.
Conclusion: Zeleny's morality is not based on real world situations, and
can therefore be ignored.
>No. The formula of the universal law rules out any action essentially
>incompatible with the performance of an imperfect duty, because the
>success of your willing the essential incompatibility into universal
>law would prevent the satisfaction of the duty in question by anyone,
>at any time and place.
Pardon me, but when homosexuals have sex they are not operating under
the maxim that everybody should have homosexual sex, everytime. They are
operating under the maxim that everone should choose what form of sex they
wich to have.
>: The result of current human economic choices is a society in which
>: sufficient food is grown to continue the human race. You have said, as I
>: understand it, that the mere participation in this is sufficient to
>: satisfy the moral obligation to provide food.
>: The result of current human reproductive choices is a society in which
>: sufficient children are produced to continue the human race. Therefore, the
>: mere participation in these choices, such as deciding not to produce one's
>: own but equally not to prevent others from producing children, is sufficient
>: to satisfy the moral obligation to provide children.
>Reproduction is the power of sexuality.
No. Reproduction is the result of humans choosing actions based on their
sexuality. Sexuality is not an entity, and has no power.
>Necessarily, the sexual behavior of the homosexual contributes nothing to
>reproduction.
Nor does it prevent it for others, in sufficient quantity to continue
the human species.
>In so far as reproduction is a duty, homosexuality is immoral.
Reproduction has not been shown to be a duty for any one individual.
"Quoting your own words does not make them more authoritative." - Zeleny.
>Now tell me what sort of essential connection to reproduction could
>redeem an act of homosexual buggery.
You have not shown that sex needs to have an essential connection to
reproduction.
"Quoting your own words does not make them more authoritative." - Zeleny.
>::: Homosexuality and homosexuals, as with all non-fertile sex acts and
>::: members of the human race, threaten the existence of mankind not at all.
>:: The same could be said about self-mutilators, zoophiles, and drug addicts.
>: That is correct. So ?
>I consider these practices exemplary of degradation and self-abuse.
Artists, philosophy students, and musicians also threaten the existence of
mankind not at all.
>Your intuitions evidently differ.
You, obviously, are a fool.
>: I'd be a fool to pay for a self-deceitful liar as a teacher.
>You are a fool regardless -- but I do not recall ever having asked you
>for any remuneration for charitably assisting your remedial education.
My education is my own business. Self-deceitful liars should look to
examining their own motives for continuing to attempt to prove to the
world how much they despise homosexuals.
>But since you have taken it upon yourself to interrogate me about my sexual
>habits,
I did not. I interrogated you about *specific* sexual acts that might
be considered immoral under your professed morality. Thus, I was attempting
to discover whether
>I feel entitled to return the favor in order to determine your personal
>motivation in pursuing this argument.
Certainly, in the light of the above statement.
>Have you ever buggered a man, or been buggered by a man?
I do not consider male-male anal sex immoral.
>Have you ever sucked cock, or had yourself blown by another man?
I do not consider male-male oral sex immoral.
>Have you ever had sex with a sheep, a cow, a horse, a dog, a dingo, an
>emu, a wombat, or any other wild or domestic animal not of your own
>species?
I do not consider human-animal sex immoral per se. The qualifier should
become clearer later.
>Feel free to volunteer any other information you may deem apposite.
>Please be precise and specific.
Certainly. I make the following two statements showing that I am not a
hypocrite under *my* professed moral code.
I have never knowingly, to the best of my knowledge, used sex in violation
of those rights I recognise. These include, but are not limited to, the
human right not to consent to sex, the right of a child not to be subject
to sexual advances from an adult using the power of this position, the right
of people to specify what happens to their remains after death, the right of
animals not to be subject to gratuitious cruelty, and the human right to
choose to discontinue sex at any time.
I have never knowingly, to the best of my knowledge, used sex to
emotionally abuse anyone.
You will note that these leave wide latitude. Assuming I have taken that
latitude would be foolish.
Now, Michael, we have heard *your* professed morality. The following
questions relate to acts which are immoral under that morality. We have
already heard a statement from Erin which implies that the answer to at
least one of them is "yes". The answers to these should indicate whether
*you* are a hypocrite.
Have you ever ejaculated during oral sex ?
Have you ever ejaculated during anal sex ?
Have you ever willingly ejaculated with a partner anywhere but inside a
vagina ?
>The disanalogy here is that labor is defined by the totality of
>its social connections, whereas sexuality is a private matter
>between the three people involved.
Sexuality, mayhap. Reproductive duties, I submit, are also defined by
the totality of social choices in this area.
>: Homosexuals who pay taxes, babysit, or work at a productive job support
>: the raising of children at least as much as students support farmers.
>They do not, however, support it by dint of, or in virtue of
>anything having to do with, their sexuality.
So ? You have still failed to establish a duty for them to do so.
Try again, Michael.
piranha
Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> wrote:
while i appreciate a good flamewar, and am glad to actually
catch a glimpse of erin, even if vicariously, i keep wonder-
ing why the hell this thread is being crossposted to soc.
singles. it's disappointing to see such pretty little bluish
flames and not to have any ammunition to join in. you'all
might want to take soc.singles off that newsgroup line. hey,
kiwifruit, that means you.
-piranha
Rossi
>On 9 Mar 1995, Tal Kubo wrote:
I don't know where this thread started and I really don't
care, but since it was cross-posted could you please remove
soc.singles from the list?
songbird (followups redirected
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
>be...@fohnix.metronet.com (Rod Swift) writes:
>: Oral sex is immoral, no matter who practices it.
>Not if it is practiced as foreplay during heterosexual intercourse.
Sorry, but you're contradicting yourself yet *again*:
"So Kant tells you that, since you owe your very provenance as an agent to
a single fertile act of sexual intercourse, any necessarily infertile form
of sexual intercourse cannot be willed to be an instance of a lawlike choice,
in so far as its instantiation at the moment of your conception would have
preempted your biological existence as a necessary condition of your current
moral deliberation."
If, "at the moment of your conception" [passing over the disparity between
conception and ejaculation], you parents had been practising oral sex rather
than PiV sex, you wouldn't be here.
By your own words, ejaculation anywhere but in a vagina is immoral.
>: Surely choice is a vector in this all, or do you deny freedom to
>: choose pleasurable acts which have no particular purpose except
>: the fulfilment of human happiness and nature??
>Human nature cannot get fulfilled in sterile pleasure.
Wrong. Human nature includes the seeking of pleasure, and this seeking
is in itself moral.
Michael Zeleny
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:: be...@fohnix.metronet.com (Rod Swift) writes:
::: Oral sex is immoral, no matter who practices it.
:: Not if it is practiced as foreplay during heterosexual intercourse.
: Sorry, but you're contradicting yourself yet *again*:
This is a lie.
: "So Kant tells you that, since you owe your very provenance as an agent to
: a single fertile act of sexual intercourse, any necessarily infertile form
: of sexual intercourse cannot be willed to be an instance of a lawlike choice,
: in so far as its instantiation at the moment of your conception would have
: preempted your biological existence as a necessary condition of your current
: moral deliberation."
:
: If, "at the moment of your conception" [passing over the disparity between
: conception and ejaculation], you parents had been practising oral sex rather
: than PiV sex, you wouldn't be here.
:
: By your own words, ejaculation anywhere but in a vagina is immoral.
Like I said, it does not matter where you start, only where you finish.
Nothing in the above quotations contradicts this principle.
::: Surely choice is a vector in this all, or do you deny freedom to
::: choose pleasurable acts which have no particular purpose except
::: the fulfilment of human happiness and nature??
:: Human nature cannot get fulfilled in sterile pleasure.
: Wrong. Human nature includes the seeking of pleasure, and this seeking
: is in itself moral.
Dear Agony Auntie: I enjoy killing. I kill animals in hunting season
with great relish. I think it would please me to kill people. Please
advise me whether fulfilling *my* human nature by seeking the pleasure
of killing an especially annoying individual would be "in itself moral."
Do not beg the question by arrogating inviolable rights to my
prospective victim, for there are no rights without morality.
Gene Ward Smith
> Actually, David, you fail to understand Zeleny's marvellous logic.
> The only "moral" reason for sex is reproduction. But you don't have
> to reproduce. All you have to do is, whenever you ejaculate, ejaculate
> inside a vagina. Unless you're with a woman, in which case you can
> ejaculate anywhere or use condoms and the Pill. This is because sex
> is for reproduction.
Actually, that isn't good enough, since Zeleny's logic goes beyond the
merely marvelous. It *isn't* all right to ejaculate in the vagina of an
XY woman, since she is in essence male, and that would be homosexual.
Zeleny himself does not know if he bears the terrible guilt of homosexual
sex.
hlids...@netins.net
Well, I had asked Zeleny in another post about having sex with women who
are engaging in contraceptive, have had damage to their womb, or who had
genetic abnormalities that prevented them from getting pregnant. His reply
was something to the effect that I was not responsible for accidents. So
I suppose having sex with an XY woman would be all right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Leemon hlids...@ins.infonet.net
What fun is it being "cool" if you can't wear a sombrero?
- Hobbes
Michael Zeleny
: zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:: In so far as reproduction is a duty, homosexuality is immoral.
: a) Gay people can reproduce.
: b) Reproduction is not a duty.
:
: You really need to demonstrate that (a) *and* (b) are incorrect. You've
: been struggling with (b) for quite a while now, care to try (a)?
Any fertile individual can reproduce. But in so far as his reproductive
ability is exercised within a single sexual act (as opposed to a medical
procedure), the said act is bound to be heterosexual. Since we want to
determine the moral merits of a given action (for no moral judgment can
apply to a mere disposition) the relevant observation is that homosexuals
cannot reproduce through any homosexual acts, the lesbians with a turkey
baster scenario notwithstanding.
All sorts of fascinating combinatorial possibilities can be assessed by
means of focusing on the individual contribution of each participant to
the potential fertility of the act. For example, my argument condemns
a daisy chain comprised of two men and one woman, by noting the otiose
role played by the nonorthogenitally engaged male. By contrast, the
same dramatis personae overdetermining fatherhood by engaging in double
vaginal penetration would seem to involve no immediate contradiction of
universalized will. Whether or not this arrangement is acceptable on
other grounds is a different matter.
Michael Zeleny
Gene Ward Smith <gsmith@lab1> writes:
If the partners see each other for a month, it is possible to know for sure.