Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Do you not recognize it?

every "is" implies and "ought".

Rand said it.

She applied it to Man. My point, is that male and female, each implies an ought, too. Look at her view on femininity, masculinity, and hero worship.

She also said it this way:

"The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do."

 

Secondhander dealt with this 'argument' thoughtfully and thoroughly here: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=25156&p=308005

 

Rather than confront this argument, you simply moved to a new thread without those posts in it, and kept repeating the same one-liners.

 

Considering that you reasserted this argument:

 

 

OPAR: "To respect sex means to approach it objectively"

"Sex is the preeminent form of bringing love into physical reality"

"This excludes....any form of....faking"

I would think this is applicable to gender, biological roles of the two sexes qua man, qua woman.

Homosexual acts fake/evade reality, gender, biological roles, even gender specific sex organs.

For example:

Females strapped on a strap-on - faking the role of a man has as penetrator, etc

Male poop chute is faking the role of a vag and a man has become the penetrated, etc.

This is not normal or natural. Human biology, human sexual reproduction evidences that. Man qua man is heterosexual and it's a concern for psychology to deal with primarily if there is a deviation from that, or for philosophy as in hedonism/subjectivism, or them being "broken units", etc. It indicates something is not normal, not natural, something is wrong somewhere.

 

You need to confront Secondhander's reducto ad absurdum here:

To help illustrate where you go wrong with your affirmation of the is-ought problem: Do you think that a woman is morally wrong if she chooses not to have children, because a woman "is" biologically built to get pregnant and have children, so that's what she "ought" to do? Do you think a man is morally wrong if he chooses not to have sex or not to have children? Do you think anal sex is morally wrong for heterosexual couples, since the rectum "is" meant for waste disposal, therefore it "ought" not be used for anything else? Do you think that wearing a condom is morally wrong, since semen "is" biologically designed to fertilize an egg, so that's what you "ought" to do in sex? Do you believe that you should not kiss anyone, since the lips, tongue and mouth "is" designed for speaking and tasting and eating food, so you "ought" not touch lips and tongues to someone else's? Tongues qua tongues are normally and naturally for tasting purposes, after all. 

 

If you affirm the is-ought problem, then you run into all these sorts of problems. And Ayn Rand was not blanketly affirming that an "is" constituted an "ought."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

heh, pseudo monosexuality, mental masturbation

 

I am very much a mono-homo, exceptionally attracted to macho male homo sapiens. Primarly seeking monogamous mojo with said entities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  

I am very much a mono-homo, exceptionally attracted to macho male homo sapiens. Primarly seeking monogamous mojo with said entities.

 

I did not mean to imply anything, just a poor attempt at semantic humor about you not caring about the responses to your posts. I am less objective than Archimedes when it comes to boats and floating, he figured it out , I say whatever

Edited by tadmjones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OPAR: "There is no dichotomy between existence and reality. To be, for a man, is to be a man"

Right. I think this is applicable to gender, as well.

I am a man. She is a woman. These are facts of reality, the metaphysically biologically given. Man has a certain nature and should act accordingly, men and women have a certain nature specifically to them, too, one example is gender specific parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my post #124, "How does one go from the 'is' of 'I possess this type of sex organs'  to the 'ought' of 'I should only use them with people who have a different type'?" I went on to more details in that post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a human being, is the biologically given. My feelings do not change that.

I am a man, not a woman- is the biologically given. My feelings do not change that.

I am a man, and so I have a certain biological role in human sexual reproduction. My feelings do not change that role.

A man and a woman have certain biological roles in human sexual reproduction. That is the biologically given. My feelings do not change that.

Both are heterosexual is the biologically given.

Same-sex "sex", or even with different species (as evidenced by zootube365 site if you don't believe it occurs), is going against their biologically given roles. Feelings don't change that.

But, one can have feelings such as "I'm really a woman" while clearly a man. Or I have feelings or an attraction to same-sex. Those feelings don't change the biologically given.

Is man able to have sex with a man? I don't think they can, but they can fellate and one can use ones own rectum to stimulate the other guys penis or allow him to, masturbate the other guy with one's own hand, etc. Their biological role in sex, is sex with a woman. The sex organs evidence that. Human sexual intercourse, copulation, cannot take place between same-sex. Only between penis and vag.

What if they are two consenting males that want to partake in such acts? Legally no one can stop it, because no force is being initiated.

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I am a man, and so I have a certain biological role in human sexual reproduction. My feelings do not change that role.

A man and a woman have certain biological roles in human sexual reproduction. That is the biologically given. My feelings do not change that.

 

Gender roles are societal or cultural, and therefore not metaphysically given. Saying a man has a role in sexual reproduction, while true, doesn't make him duty bound or morally obligated to fill that role according to Objectivist ethics. Reproduction is not the standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a human being, is the biologically given. My feelings do not change that.

I am a man, not a woman- is the biologically given. My feelings do not change that.

I am a man, and so I have a certain biological role in human sexual reproduction. My feelings do not change that role.

A man and a woman have certain biological roles in human sexual reproduction. That is the biologically given. My feelings do not change that.

Both are heterosexual is the biologically given.

Actually, just to point out, it doesn't even follow that both are heterosexual. I don't think there is a such thing as a heterosexual species. You don't have evidence that *attraction for humans* is normally heterosexual, but of course it is true society tends to determine prescribe what is appropriate attraction. All you said is the opposite sex is needed to make a baby. Heterosexuality is just a 20th century invention basically, if you want to get specific about it. Cite research if you want any of your claims to matter regarding *sexuality* which is largely a psychological matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I have been looking around on the web some, I found a comment by someone that says:

" You should be happy to know that near the end of her life, Harry Binswanger asked AR if she still believed that homosexuality was immoral. She said, "No." This is the reason that Robert Mayhew did not include AR's earlier condemnation of homosexuality. It was a position she no longer held. I learned both of these facts directly from asking HB and RM."

http://www.atlassociety.org/homosexuality-moral

This also has a reference to Binswanger asking Rand and what he say she said:

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html#Q5.2.6

" Reports of private conversations held before and after these answers were given indicate that she sometimes expressed a more qualified position, stating that because the psychological origins of homosexuality were not clearly understood, blanket moral condemnation would be inappropriate. For example, Harry Binswanger described her attitude thusly:

I asked her privately (circa 1980) specifically whether she thought it was immoral. She said that we didn't know enough about the development of homosexuality in a person's psychology to say that it would have to involve immorality.

  • Because she did not speak at length on the subject in public and no essays about it were published by her or her associates during her lifetime, any further details of her positions are not known, although her personal disapproval and distaste for homosexuality are clear."

    Peikoff in a pod cast I linked to in the other thread, says there are parallels between homosexual and heterosexual, and just like there are moral or immoral heterosexual sex, there are moral or immoral in homosexuality.

    I look to the facts of reality and go from there.

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I look at reality, only men and women can have sexual intercourse. Same-sex "sex" is merely stimulating same sex partners sexual organs. Being that only men and women can have sexual intercourse, sexual attraction would then be towards opposite sex, not towards same sex, so that's why we are normally and naturally heterosexual. But I will have to explore that more. As I said I'm trying to look at the facts of reality and go from there, that what Rand did to discover Mans Nature, so I'm trying to do that in regards to male and females.<br /><br />On this site:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_and_homosexuality<br /><br />Binswanger says that Rand when in an especially good mood would adopt a modified view on homosexuality. This strikes me as odd, her judgment is pronounced according to mood?

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Being that only men and women can have sexual intercourse, sexual attraction would then be towards opposite sex, not towards same sex, so that's why we are normally and naturally heterosexual.

 

This is rationalism.

 

You still have not confronted the previous dissections of your arguments, or even acknowledged that they exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Coming late to this discussion; maybe this is redundant.)

 

#135 as it stands is, like Branden's arguments of yore, hopelessly circular.  If you start from the premise that heterosexuality is the naturally obligatory and not merely statistical norm, binding on everybody regardless of inclination, the conclusion follows easily enough that homosexuality is - phrase it as you will - sinful, but that doesn't buy you much.

 

Such arguments from Objectivists are also internally inconsistent.  Nothing is more natural about heterosexual acts than that they conceive children.  If you approve of abortion or of masturbation or of contraception, including elective surgery, or of sex between partners who by virtue of age, illness or injury are unable to conceive, then this argument from natural destiny sinks.  The traditional Catholic position (abortion, masturbation and contraception are all sins against nature) may not have much going for it, but it's almost true to itself (except the part about sex acts by couples unable to make babies).

 

P.S.  Add to the above list: non-standard means of ingress by otherwise-qualifying heterosexual couples.

Edited by Reidy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I look at reality, only men and women can have sexual intercourse. Same-sex "sex" is merely stimulating same sex partners sexual organs. Being that only men and women can have sexual intercourse, sexual attraction would then be towards opposite sex, not towards same sex, so that's why we are normally and naturally heterosexual.

This seems like a non-sequitur to me. The stimulation of sex organs is precisely the point of sexual intercourse, 9 times out of 10. This serves the life-affirming spiritual purpose of reifying the respect and admiration that two people have for each other. This is the fundamental purpose of sex to most people. Can you please explain why people with matching sex organs can't do this?

And please consider that you can't magic away the feelings of sexual attraction that gay people have for each other. You're treating such concretes as abstract ideas that can be redefined. They can't; they are very real things of chemistry, physics, mind and spirit. This hormonal attraction is a requirement of any appropriate sexual encounter; homosexual attraction can and does fulfill this requirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of ought is implied by the "is" of homosexual male or homosexual female?

You are taking male and female as observations of "is". Fair enough.

However, you're implicitly saying that "homosexual male" is not an "is".

What about "fat male", or "thin male" or "black male"... surely you see that these are "is"-es, and they each imply some type of "ought".

 Question: How far and wide can a man cast the net of is and out? When do you use is/out?. Can a man decide what his identity is? If man's life is his standard can he refuse and say his life is not his standard of being? How about someone who modifies or changes their sexuality because of a traumatic event with a certain gender. I know these are basic questions but having this as an example to reflect upon will help me understand it better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: How far and wide can a man cast the net of is and out?

When it comes to concretes, we have to discover what we are and what is good for us, through all sorts of knowledge-gaining techniques. Even on something as fundamental as food, science has changed so much (and is still unsettled) on the question of "what is good for us"? Some rules ("eat this, don't eat that") may not apply universally to all humans. Perhaps one day we'll be able to understand a particular human being and say "You should eat more bacon and less eggs", while giving the exact opposite advice to someone else.

On the topic of homosexuality, I really have no well-developed opinion on its causes or nature. I only posted to this thread because I noticed a post saying that Objectivism was negative toward homosexuality, and providing no evidence for this. Anyone arguing against homosexuality needs to provide some evidence and some argument. Saying that "is implies an ought" or that "man must live qua man" is not an argument. Anyone making an "argument" like that is simply begging the question. He has already decided that homosexuality is either bad, or is less than the ideal good; but, this is the point to be proven, not to be assumed away. One cannot discover a concrete like that from philosophical principles, any more than one can discover what foods are nutritious. (In general, starting from broad abstractions and trying to fit concretes into them with scant evidence that they belong is the core of dogmatism -- or, more technically -- intrinsicism.)

Now, when the person arguing against homosexuality talks about the evolutionary importance of sex, that finally starts to be in the right ballpark as far as the *type* of argument goes. At least now we're starting to examine facts rather than simply shove a concrete into an extremely broad philosophical principle, with scant evidence. Similarly, asking whether people are born homosexual or not is also a proper attempt to get knowledge; but, even if we discover that people are always born heterosexual, that -- on its own -- would not be all we need to know.

An individual does not have to wait around until science is conclusive. He has to decide if he is going to eat pasta, legumes, bacon, tuna... etc. When there's so much conflicting evidence around, he has to figure out a way in which he will judge its validity, and has to proceed with the understanding that he could be wrong. In the case of homosexuality, I do not know of any strong evidence one way or the other. What is a person to do in such a case? The rational approach is to start by asking "Does this make me happy?". In other words, ask what value you gain from something. Do not ask "what does a human being gain", ask "what do I gain?" This is how one *starts* the process inductively, rather than dogmatically. One starts from the concrete: which is YOU, the individual (or a particular friend who is homosexual, etc.), and then one expands out from there. Of course, you must also ask: "does this harm me in any way?", "what am I losing from this?", "Is there some other value that would give me more?".

If something makes you happy, then you can probably also tie it back to your overall values, in a more abstract way. One does not need much thought for every tiny thing, but definitely for important values, or things on which one is spending a lot of resources. As humans we need to understand how it fits into our life... into our overall hierarchy of values. Have you read Rand's essay on stamp-collecting? Stamp collecting obviously made her happy, and she gave it some thought to understand why. The essay is her explanation. If something makes you happy and is not harmful, nor is taking up valuable time and resources that are better spent on other pursuits, then what's left to ask?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Question: How far and wide can a man cast the net of is and out? When do you use is/out?

Well, "X is therefor X(or something associated with X) ought" is not logical. It's an arbitrary statement. When Ayn Rand says "The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do.", that's not the claim she is making.

 

She is saying that there are certain conditions required for life. That, if we choose values based on what those conditions are, then there is no such thing as an is-ought dichotomy.

 

But that's it: life. Specifically, an individual's own life. That is the only IS she is referring to. She isn't referring to anyone's penis, or a chair, or a species, or any other random object or concept as the reasoning behing her OUGHTs. In fact, she makes it very clear that the ONE AND ONLY PREMISE it is appropriate to deduce any OUGHTs from is "whatever is required to further one's own life".

 

When someone says that a penis ought to only go into a vagina, because of the way penises and vaginas are shaped, or because of how a species reproduces, or whatever other reason they list, that's not Objectivist Ethics (it's obviously not selfishness, where one's own life is the only source of one's values). According to Objectivism, the only valid reason for any OUGHT is "because it furthers an individual's life". Not the shape of the penis, not the species, not society, not fellow man, not God, not your cat, not your whims, etc. etc.

 

As to whether acting on and embracing being gay does or does not further one's life, that must be settled through the study of facts. I would think that there are plenty of happy, accomplished gay people around so that we can, at this point, conclude that embracing homosexuality can in fact be a rational, moral choice. It's a choice that can indeed further an individual's life, and therefor it is perfectly logical to say that gay people ought to be gay, not straight. In fact, whether being gay comes from nature or nurture is also irrelevant to the validity of that statement.

 

Regarding the trans-sexuality question, again: we must look at the facts. I have not seen the kind of evidence that it works that I've seen regarding being gay, but that's because it's a rare, new phenomenon. It remains to be seen.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same-sex are biologically sexually incompatible because they have the same sex organs, etc. So they improvise. Nature be damned.

Just how "normal and natural" is that?

Just how moral is that?

Just how much like sexual hedonism does it sound like?

I don't care if we are biologically sexually incompatible, I have feelings for same-sex, or I have feelings for different species. Nature be damned. I'll fellate same-sex, or fellate different species (horse, dog) because I have feelings for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homosexuals can only be said to be "sexually incompatible" if you are talking about reproduction. But we've already dispensed with the myth that sex is primarily about reproduction. I'll continue to take your silence on that point as acceptance of it.


The only sexual compatibility that matters is a mutual combination of sexual arousal, respect and admiration. Fellating a different species couldn't fulfill  the purpose of reifying a mutual respect and admiration. Fellating a human being can serve that purpose, as evidenced by heterosexual couples. To  my  knowledge, men and women have the same mouths. Ergo, homosexuals can reify respect and admiration through fellatio.


It seems that your task, if you disagree, is to show why penis-vagina penetration is necessary to reify love. I'm willing to listen to that argument.

Edited by FeatherFall
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't regard oral stimulation of a penis as sex. Using one's own anal cavity to stimulate a penis, I do not regard as sex. I do not regard such oral or anal activity as sex, regardless if its occurring between same-sex or opposite gender. Human sex only can take place between a man and a woman. Human sexuality is heterosexual in nature, human biology evidences this. Just because same-sex partners can stimulate their partners sex organs various ways, does not mean it's normal and natural. Sex is bringing love into physical reality, as OPAR says. How can same-sex bring that into physical reality, when they cannot physically have sex to begin with?

Homosexuality, bisexuality are not sexual orientations. They are hedonism, they are psychological issues, etc.

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't regard oral stimulation of a penis as sex. Using one's own anal cavity to stimulate a penis, I do not regard as sex. I do not regard such oral or anal activity as sex, regardless if its occurring between same-sex or opposite gender. Human sex only can take place between a man and a woman. Human sexuality is heterosexual in nature, human biology evidences this. Just because same-sex partners can stimulate their partners sex organs various ways, does not mean it's normal and natural. Sex is bringing love into physical reality, as OPAR says. How can same-sex bring that into physical reality, when they cannot physically have sex to begin with?

Homosexuality, bisexuality are not sexual orientations. They are hedonism, they are psychological issues, etc.

As to your working definition of sex, that's what Bill C said.

Personally I think the definition of sex has to include the idea of stimulation of the sex organs with the intent of acheiving orgasm.

It seems also you are trying to stay with the is/ought argument as it applies to your use of the terms normal and natural. How would 'normal' behaviour be understood without accepting the notion of innate ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicky wrote: "homosexuality can in fact be a rational, moral choice"

What is so rational and moral about it?

How is one able to have sexual desire towards someone they cannot even physically have sex with?

Sexual desire, sexual attraction, sexual orientation, romantic love, are only possible between opposite genders. All the rest are hedonism, psychological issues.

If one shares common interest and core values with same-sex that is a great basis for a friendship, not a trip to the bedroom together.

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IntellectualAmmo,

You've said human sex can only occur between a man and a woman. You've also shown some knowledge about Objectivism's take on sex. You've basically offered two descriptions:

1)Sex is, physically speaking, a penis penetrating a vagina and nothing else.
2)Sex is the act of bringing love into reality.

Now, which one hits closer to the definition? Biologically speaking, I'd say #1 - so long as the act culminates in conception... But we've already dispensed with baby-making as the purpose of sex; we certainly can't use it to deduce the second statement.

So what if we're not talking about making babies, but rather the role of sex in the life of a rational being? Which statement is closer to the definition of sex? I think the answer is clearly #2. Working from that description, can you please show me (step by step) how you deduce that penile penetration of the vagina is necessary?

 

Edit: I ask because if one statement implies the other, you should be able to induce or deduce freely between them. So far you've failed to show the connection from 1 to 2. Maybe you'll have better luck showing the connection from 2 to 1.

Edited by FeatherFall
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...