Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[numinus]

Opaque, deliberately so I suspect. I certainly hope that you are not a teacher or even hoping to become one. Since you claim to dealing with universal absolutes, take all this intellectual and pseudo-intellectual posturing and produce something tangible. Use it to address and resolve one of the moral dilemas facing mankind. Take your pick, or I can suggest some.

Consider the imperative - thou shall not kill.

When you view this imperative as ENTIRELY relative, then you get all sorts of moral dilemma - capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia and the right to die, killing of comatose individuals, war on terrorism, war on imperialism, war on the infidel, ethnic cleansing, radical nationalism, etc., ad nauseaum.

The whole of humanity is painfully connected with one another. One can no longer afford to be exclusively adversarial with his neighbor since its logical and penultimate conclusion is mutual annihilation.

 

[numinus]

What are you chuntering on about?

I am arguing for the immutability of moral law.

You are arguing for moral relativity.

Which do you think is more ambigous from the two - something that is known universally or something that cannot be known, eh?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Consider the imperative - thou shall not kill.

When you view this imperative as ENTIRELY relative, then you get all sorts of moral dilemma - capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia and the right to die, killing of comatose individuals, war on terrorism, war on imperialism, war on the infidel, ethnic cleansing, radical nationalism, etc., ad nauseaum.

Okay, that's half the question, what do you have when the imperative is not taken relatively? Where does an absolute "Thou shalt not kill" leave us? And what point are you trying to make with this statement?

The whole of humanity is painfully connected with one another. One can no longer afford to be exclusively adversarial with his neighbor since its logical and penultimate conclusion is mutual annihilation.

Nonsense, we could go on just like we have for the last 15,000 years, breeding faster than we are killing each other, and as we move out into space we can expand the arena of breeding and killing to vast numbers of planets.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I am arguing for the immutability of moral law.

Which you have not shown to exist, which I have never been able to find, which no one I ever heard of was able to find, and you only talk about and talk about and talk about. Where is this immutable moral law?

You are arguing for moral relativity.

Yep, it's the only kind I ever saw, and short of God, it's the only one that I think exists.

Which do you think is more ambigous from the two - something that is known universally or something that cannot be known, eh?

Which is more blue, the thing you've never seen or the thing you cannot see? I don't know of anything that is Universally known, and anyway how could I compare it with something that cannot be known, eh?

You are a master of wonderfully diaphanous, cotton-candy flights of verbally metaphorical fancies that don't apparently have any substantive meaning.

I'm still waiting for you to trot out one of those axioms that is intuitively logical and absolute, and solve one of mankinds enduring problems with it. If I wasn't such a nice, trusting person I might begin to suspect that you are bullship artist.

 

[numinus]

Okay, that's half the question, what do you have when the imperative is not taken relatively? Where does an absolute "Thou shalt not kill" leave us? And what point are you trying to make with this statement?

Sigh

The imperative is a good in ITSELF -do not kill for the sake of not killing. Nothing else justifies it but itself - certainly not any subjective end one may concot.

And when an imperative accrues to NO OTHER GOOD BUT ITSELF, then such an imperative is a command of a moral law.

Nonsense, we could go on just like we have for the last 15,000 years, breeding faster than we are killing each other, and as we move out into space we can expand the arena of breeding and killing to vast numbers of planets.

Nonsense, yourself!

Do you consider the state of mutual annihilation as man's natural end? And this is a necessary imperative simply because our environment is finite?

The thoughts you are entertaining is so unprecedented, illogic is hardly the thing to describe it.

 

[Segep]

One can no longer afford to be exclusively adversarial with his neighbor since its logical and penultimate conclusion is mutual annihilation.

Do you know what penultimate means? Just out of curiousity, if mutual annihilation is the penultimate conclusion to adversarial relationships with one's neighbor, pray tell me what the ultimate conclusion is.

 

[numinus]

Which you have not shown to exist, which I have never been able to find, which no one I ever heard of was able to find, and you only talk about and talk about and talk about. Where is this immutable moral law?

I have said it like a broken record - A GOOD IN ITSELF.

When something is a GOOD IN ITSELF, it is JUSTIFIED BY ITSELF. It need not borrow justification outside itself to lend validity to it. In the same vein, nothing outside itself can diminish its worth.

I don't know about you, but I see people behave according to these principles everywhere.

Yep, it's the only kind I ever saw, and short of God, it's the only one that I think exists.

You do not see people living an honorable life, albeit replete with hardships, rather than live a life of crime?

Which is more blue, the thing you've never seen or the thing you cannot see? I don't know of anything that is Universally known, and anyway how could I compare it with something that cannot be known, eh?

What are you talking about! I have already given you various examples!

The principles behind the UNIVERSAL declaration of human rights.

The counter-intuitive claim that everyone is born/created EQUAL.

Freedom and human dignity are among the NECESSARY conditions of human existence.

Ignorance, by coercion of choice, undermines these conditions.

etc., etc.

What the hell else do you need to see them for what they are?

You are a master of wonderfully diaphanous, cotton-candy flights of verbally metaphorical fancies that don't apparently have any substantive meaning.

LOL.

You should have realized by now that I am arguing from kant's 'general principles of the metaphysics of morals'.

His work is certainly one of the most sublime artistic expression of the human mind in philosophical FORM AND SUBSTANCE.

J. bentham's utilitarian morality, which I glean traces of in your arguments, pales to absurdity in comparison.

I'm still waiting for you to trot out one of those axioms that is intuitively logical and absolute, and solve one of mankinds enduring problems with it. If I wasn't such a nice, trusting person I might begin to suspect that you are bullship artist.

I just did - over and over and over.....again.

 

[numinus]

Do you know what penultimate means? Just out of curiousity, if mutual annihilation is the penultimate conclusion to adversarial relationships with one's neighbor, pray tell me what the ultimate conclusion is.

LOL.

I'm glad you asked! I didn't expect anyone to notice.

The ultimate conclusion of evil is NOTHINGNESS - which is opposite the CREATIVE nature of good.

 

[Segep]

So before God said "let there be light" the universe was composed of pure Evil?

 

[numinus]

So before God said "let there be light" the universe was composed of pure Evil?

That's one way of looking at it.

Notice how everytime god makes something, he sees it is good.

 

[Segep]

Sooo....what the heck was God doing when all that evil filled the Universe? Was he off in some other Universe fishing? If Nothingness is Evil, is Anything good?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Sigh
The imperative is a good in ITSELF -do not kill for the sake of not killing. Nothing else justifies it but itself - certainly not any subjective end one may concot.

Well, maybe. I am coming to think that you have a lot of these IMMUTABLE ABSOLUTES inside your head and you believe that everyone else does too, and if you can just wake people up to these things in their heads then the world will sort itself out more neatly. Is that close?

And when an imperative accrues to NO OTHER GOOD BUT ITSELF, then such an imperative is a command of a moral law.

Without some proof and several examples I don't think I would sign up with this one either. It has a superficial appeal, but things often do, however in practice they rarely work out like that.

Nonsense, yourself!
Do you consider the state of mutual annihilation as man's natural end? And this is a necessary imperative simply because our environment is finite?

I keep trying to make sense of the absolutes you post. No, I don't consider the state of mutual annihilation as man's natural end. Is this and either/or situaltion? It doesn't seem like it to me. I can't see the point you are trying to make. And who says the environment is finite? You make statements and want me to take them as being true, but you never say where they come from or give any proof of them. Just because something looks "self-evident" to you doesn't mean that anyone else sees it that way.

The thoughts you are entertaining is so unprecedented, illogic is hardly the thing to describe it.

I don't know what you mean with this, don't be so cryptic, if you are going to make a statement like the one above then explain what it is that you are talking about. I can't read your mind--the print is way too small.

 

[dahermit]

Back on track?

so? Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic? Or, feel free to start a philosophy thread. It is starting to sound like: "How many angles can dance on the head of a pin?"

So...we gunna beat up dem homos or not?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have said it like a broken record - A GOOD IN ITSELF.
When something is a GOOD IN ITSELF, it is JUSTIFIED BY ITSELF. It need not borrow justification outside itself to lend validity to it. In the same vein, nothing outside itself can diminish its worth.
I don't know about you, but I see people behave according to these principles everywhere.

You do not see people living an honorable life, albeit replete with hardships, rather than live a life of crime?

Yes, but I see a lot of definition involved in what is "honorable" and what is "crime". You see these as absolutes even though you cannot define them absolutely.

What are you talking about! I have already given you various examples!
The principles behind the UNIVERSAL declaration of human rights.
The counter-intuitive claim that everyone is born/created EQUAL.
Freedom and human dignity are among the NECESSARY conditions of human existence.
Ignorance, by coercion of choice, undermines these conditions.
etc., etc.
What the hell else do you need to see them for what they are?

You should have realized by now that I am arguing from kant's 'general principles of the metaphysics of morals'.

His work is certainly one of the most sublime artistic expression of the human mind in philosophical FORM AND SUBSTANCE.

Finally! So you are arguing from your understanding of something that Kant wrote in the 1700's? No wonder you kant explain yourself clearly. Simply regurgitating someone else's work without having made it your own will often make it come out garbled.

J. bentham's utilitarian morality, which I glean traces of in your arguments, pales to absurdity in comparison.
I just did - over and over and over.....again.

Please excuse me for saying this, but I think that your grasp of Kant's work is inadequate for you to be using it this way on a discussiong site. Kant wrote some pretty high-level stuff, things that were/are very difficult to comprehend without a kind of Kantian-immersion experience. For you to be trying to use his stuff for a back and forth with a stranger on a discussion site if futile. Neither of us has enough background on the other person to know how to frame our posts in such a way as to clearly express the complex and esoteric ideas involved here. What happens instead is that we end up looking like two people trying to have a discussion when we don't speak each other's languages. I'm glad that you finally said what it was that you were doing, I was beginning to think that one of us was bonkers. Nice try, Numi, but not possible--have a nice day.

Are you familiar with Monty Python's Philosopher's Song?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

so? Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic? Or, feel free to start a philosophy thread. It is starting to sound like: "How many angles can dance on the head of a pin?"

It's genetic. I got started with Numi because I thought he had a point to make on the subject of the thread. But he didn't, and now I know that. Adios, Tonto.