blackdiamond

LarkinLadyInn, I'm not sure any more what you mean by "attacking a straw man". You make statements, someone points out something (perhaps a contradiction - or an apparent contradiction) from those statements - and you just accuse them of "attacking a straw man" without showing EXACTLY how it is "a straw man" they are attacking. Can you at least acknowledge the contradictions inherent in some of your arguments (with themselves or with objectivism) as pointed out by others before just attacking them for attacking a "straw man"? Begining from your starting formulation of the identity axiom, you made an error which was fundamental (by using the term 'identical') and I pointed out that your confusion lies right there (as in, you do not understand the basics of the subject matter itself that you are 'scrutinising'). But your errors have continued and you do not want anyone to point them out, apparently, because they are just "straw men". Even in your last post, you do make some fundamentally fallacious statements, but i do not know any more if they are worth pointing out. For example, . This is called "primacy of consciousness", larkin, an error you would have been familiar with if you had actually read the subject you are analysing. Just because you can imagine something does not mean "it does not defy logic". The point i am driving at is this: you do not understand the axioms themselves and what they really mean; until you do, your question (and scrutiny) itself will be wrong. When you do, you will see why your question is wrong - and the light will shine through!

LarkLadyInn, First you say: And then you say: When you bring the axioms "under scrutiny", do you mean scrutiny by logic? i suspect so. So, how are you bringing what you have identified as being "logically irrefutable" under (logical) scrutiny? If logic is unable to refute something (as you yourself say), then it (logic) CAN NOT be used for scrutinising that thing, yes? So - before i continue with this interesting discussion, i want to know what we are using to "scrutinise" the axioms, LarkLadyInn. Thanks. [To help you again, notice that you say you want to find out if the axioms are EMPIRICALLY true. But "empirically true" is itself meaningless without the axioms being true - this is the very meaning of their identity as axioms.] But first answer the other question above.

Evan, by assuming what you thought i meant, you wasted a lot of space arguing against what i did not say or even think:) Now. LadyLarkin, A thing is not identical to itself. A thing IS itself. That's the axiom of identity. "A is A" is not the same as "A is identical to A". And no, this is not a matter of semantics; the difference in these formulations lie at the very root of your confusion on this issue. Think about it.

This discussion can go nowhere. This is what happens when you try to reverse the law of causality. You can not put science before philosophy. Philosophy is the foundation of science and tells you what good/bad science is. Science can not tell you what good/bad philosophy is, and neither can it prove/disprove any philosophical principles. Any attempt to engage in a discussion that fundamentally reverses the law of causality in this way is itself irrational.

Hunterrose and Inspector, What i realise is difficult about these debates is that one can find himself debating against different people, each of whom has different convictions or understandings of different aspects of the subject at hand. The debate i carried against Mark, for example, firstly attacks Mark's position on desires (that they can not be judged unless the person ACTS on them). But then we have Qwertz stepping into this debate and he has a different take on desires (that THEY can be judged, as long as one does not drop context, etc). Now, instead of Qwertz following the debate between me and Mark, he decides to simply assert that my line of reasoning (and analogies) is irrelevant and specious and a straw man, etc (since he holds the position that he holds on desires). And of course i would not have taken the debate in that direction if the person i was debating against held the position that desires can themselves be judged. Mark does not. I am now tired of explaining this. How - HOW - can i prove that "comparing paedophilia to homosexuality is [not] specious" if my very attempts to do so are being stopped by someone who thinks the comparison is specious, before i reach my conclusion (based on the answers to my questions - from Mark). This is a form of circular argument that you apparently do not understand, Qwertz, and it is extremely difficult for one to help you there. And no. I have not taken the immorality of homosexual behaviour as granted. It was my intention to demonstrate its immorality later, but it was first important for me to establish that desires could be judged (no one is suggesting dropping context). Unless you are omniscient, you can not know whether it is important for me to establish this before i proceed with my argument. And again, it was not to YOU (Mr./Miss Qwertz) that this 'establishment' was aimed, but to the one who does not believe that desires as such can be moral or immoral - without/before necessary accompanying action. 2. In the quote below, Qwertz continues informing me about something i have not denied, of course spicing his comments with a lot of demeaning statements. For very clear reasons, i would personally not want to continue debate with this particular person. (Mark has also exercised his right to discontinue debate with me - for "many reasons". i do not understand the "many reasons", but i accept. Thanks.)

Thanks, Mark. Mark, i can not show how all this relates to homosexuality if you do not accept that one's desires can be morally judged. There is no way we are going to agree beyond this point if you do not realise this. The best i can do is to keep giving you examples and hope that by integration you will see that desires can be judged morally. A person who hates Jews is not morally wrong, according to you, if he does not act on that hatred (emotion). Paedophilia is not the only example i have used in my argument; i have also tried using racism, phobias, etc, and as far as i can see, you are quite intellectually honest, so i don't know where the problem is. The purpose of thought is to guide action? That sounds a lot like pragmatism, incidentally. But that's just a small observation. A person who hates Jews decides that he will just watch movies in which Jews are murdered as this will keep him from ACTUALLY murdering Jews. He feels enough satisfaction from just seeing a movie in which they are murdered. We can't judge his emotion about Jews and we can not even judge his fantasies and so on, as long as this does not lead to any harmful action. Hmm, Mark. (and by the way, would you say hatred of Jews is only immoral because "in action, this involves immorality"? What about if someone just hates them and does not even wish them to be murdered? He just hates them for being Jewish - that's all. is that 'emotion' of hatred amoral? OR: substitute 'gays' for 'Jews' in that statement, and see if you can now integrate.) Your syllogism above is not an honest representation of my argument (unless you have read something into it). I have not argued anywhere for the immorality of homosexuality. I am simply attacking the argument against the immorality of homosexuality; one argument in particular: that one can not judge unless there is sufficient evidence from biology / psychology about the roots of homosexuality. I am doing this by taking similar areas in which psychology/biology might not have complete or even sufficient evidence but judgment has been passed by most rational people, including Objectivists (and just not because of the action - as in hatred of Jews example above). This is not the same as me saying that "therefore, homosexuality is wrong" as your little straw man syllogism above says. I do believe homosexuality is wrong, but at this stage i do not claim to have demonstrated this already.

LarkLadyInn, The best way to help you is by first identifying your misunderstanding of "the axioms of Objectivism", in particular the axiom of identity that you use here. Wrong. The axiom of identity does not say or suggest this. Wrong again. The axiom of identity does not say or suggest this. Since these are errors in your identification / application of the axiom of identity, there is no point discussing your confusion any further. So. Are you able to see why these are not applications or restatements of the axiom of identity?

This is a circular argument. We are trying to establish if homosexuality also involves a desire to "commit immoral acts", so how can you use your answer - that it is not - in your argument to show why it is different from paedophilia? How do we demonstrate that it is immoral when the very attempt to do so is dismissed as "comparing something immoral with something not immoral?" That's all i will say about your contribution. For those who have just joined the debate, the paedophilia analogy that i introduced is taken only for one aspect of it - desire - not the choice of acting on that desire. I was hoping to establish that at least at that level, those who are dismissing the judgment of homosexuality on the mere premise that there are not enough biological/psychological studies to enable this judgment, should consistently say this about the paedophilia DESIRE as well, or else. Or else, they should explain why they will not mind passing moral judgment without enough scientific facts about its roots. Rational cop, when i talk about the desire ASPECT of homosexuality, i only mean to differentiate it from the choice of ACTING on that desire, which is another aspect altogether and is judged differently (property rights, etc). The reason i decided to limit the discussion to the desire aspect is so that we can discuss its comparison with paedophilia at that level alone and not be taken up with the human rights abuses involved in one of these. I think Rational cop has understood me here since he admits that desires can be morally judged. Mark. You are confusing two things: the experience of a certain desire, and the desire ITSELF. You can not morally judge a person who experiences a particular desire, but you can say whether that particular desire is right or wrong. But when i ask about the latter, you keep answering for the former. In short, i can say, "i have just experienced the desire to have sex with my goat - am i immoral? no. is this a moral desire? no." Since it is not a moral desire, I should not have anything to do with it. If it seems to be happening unconsciously, as an objectivist i should identify its roots so that i could know how to get rid of it, instead of just ignoring it. Mark, you do agree there is such a thing as an evil thought, right? If you do experience that evil thought - the experience does not make you evil if you are good, but neither does your experiencing it (as a good man) change the moral status of the thought. Desires, thoughts, and even philosophical ideas can have a moral status - do you agree? So, i am surprised that you think there is nothing morally wrong with the person who says, "i have these fantasies of having sex with children and i enjoy them, and i will continue having them - although i will never do anything to children." To you, it is only a problem if he acts on it. And to Rationalcop, they are wrong only because he can not fulfil them. So, perhaps i should ask: what if this person can experience some sexual fulfilment through a computer virtual reality sexual experience with these babies? can we say he is perfectly moral since he is not harming any child and since he is not harming himself any more (by rational cop's definition of harming oneself)?

First rational cop. I will say this again. The only aspect i am isolating from paedophilia as an analogy concerns its ROOTS or SOURCE, not whether one acts on it or not. The analogy connects with the DESIRE aspect of homosexuality, not whether one acts on this desire (for a similar sex) or not. When we take this aspect of DESIRE alone (not actions), can we pass moral judgment on at least one of these desires? (i.e. the paedophile's desire). If we CAN pass moral judgment on it, then i was just wondering what the basis of that judgment - on that DESIRE (not action on the desire) - would be. The reason i am asking this is that Mark and others (maybe even you) have argued that for us to pass moral judgment on homosexuality itself, we would need to have sufficient facts from the field of psychology / biology. In the absence of such facts, in an area which is still "murky", we can not judge the homosexual desire. And yet this same "absence of facts" exists in the area of paedophilia, so how come we can pass judgment in that area and not in the other (assuming we can)? (Remember i am not talking about acting on these desires, but on the desires themselves - i.e., deciding to keep them once one has identified them). Finally, the rational cop wrote : "You are conflating changing "anything" from changing emotions. I'd like to you to show me where Objectivism says you can change your sexual preference as part of "free will". The above quote suggests you are equating sexual preferrence to an emotion. If so, establish that." Rational cop, i am talking about the sexual desire for fellow men (for a male homosexual) - it's a desire, therefore it is an emotion. Or do you want me to establish that desires are emotions? Now Mark. Mark, i think you and rational cop might still have slightly different understandings of Objectivist ethics, so you might want to ignore the above statement (to rational cop) for now. I think rational cop does believe that moral judgment can extend to desires (particularly after you decide to keep them and not to pursue the task of changing them through dealing with your premises or thoughts that led to them.) You, on the other hand, seems to not really accept this. Mark, no - you have not answered my question 'already' and neither have you answered it now. I did not EARLIER ask "is a paedophile's decision to act on his predisposition immoral?" neither did i ask "what is the predisposition due to?" You are setting up straw men to evade the actual question i asked. The question i asked involves only desires. in other words, "would you say the DESIRE to have sex with children - not the 'predisposition', but the DESIRE itself - is morally right or not?" In short, would you consider a person who says, "i have these desires to have sex with children, and i really enjoy these sorts of fantasies" as equal to a man who says, " i really enjoy the fantasies of having sex with women?" Would you judge both situations as "amoral" or would you call the first guy a "pervert" for making such a statement? [i hope you will not focus on the word 'enjoy' now and judge it as the one which is immoral, because if the fantasy -or desire - is itself not immoral, then even the 'enjoying' would not be immoral.] The reason i am focusing on the paedophile, once again, is so that i might ask you the question above (see what i wrote to rational cop now). Thank you both for your stimulating responses.

I agree with most of this, Mark. But you now seem to be suggesting that there are some emotions that can not be changed or "improved". The objectivist doctrine of "free will" suggests that you can change anything about yourself (keeping the context of discussion, of course). No one would blame a child for whatever psychologogical influences they had. But when they grow up, it is their responsibility to correct whatever bad psychological problems/preferences/emotions that might have resulted from those unfortunate influences. 2. When i said "mental problem of sorts" i wanted to avoid the implication of "mental retardation". A more accurate term would be "psychological problems". Very normal people do have, for example, a fear of heights or other phobias (irrational fears). I call these fears 'abnormal', not in the sense that a genius is abnormal, but in the sense that it is not the 'normal' psychological response of a rational human to heights, etc. I hope that bit is settled. IF homosexuality is psychologically caused, then it is not only religious fundamentalists who offer the cure; objectivism does as well. I want to bring back the subject of paedophilia at this stage. If you now agree that a particular desire can be morally wrong, would you classify a desire to have sex with children as morally wrong? The reason i am using the paedophilia parallel is simply that if you can say "it is wrong", i want to know on what basis you would make that judgment since even in this area, the psychology/biology is incomplete and the "routes to change" are also as "murky". OR do you still believe we can not judge the paedophile's preferences because they are not "actions"'? I think we can say that about any other psychological problem. By your reasoning, if a person finds that it will take too long to stop being alcoholic, he should continue with the habit and make the best out of it. Your argument that it is CLEARLY harmful to him in this case does not hold if it remains true that the therapy would take "twenty years". And since he has no choice in the matter any more, being already alcoholic, by your reasoning there is nothing immoral with his alcoholism. I wonder why you did not thank me for originating the questions that led to RationalCop disagreeing with your responses in the first place! But anyway. i understand.

Mark, thanks for your response. 1. I wish you could answer the question on racism since you believe that only ACTIONS can be immoral. So, do you believe there is nothing wrong with being racist as long as you do not ACT on that? (if you say there is something wrong, then it is immoral - ethics is all about right and wrong. And this means you are accepting that morality goes beyond actions. If you say it is not wrong (racist beliefs), well then, we'll take it up from there!). 2. On the word 'abnormal'. I think you are equivocating a bit there, Mark. Abnormal has two senses, and you do very well know the sense in which i used it. it does not just mean 'deviating from the average' (as a genius does), it also means having a mental problem of sorts. i meant the latter. A paedophile is abnormal, no? 3. You say "Humans have no direct control over preferences and desires, i.e., their emotions. You can't condemn someone for something he had no choice in. No choice, no (im)morality. " You might have no choice in changing the SOURCE of your emotions, but you do have a choice on whether you keep that emotion or not - by analysing whether you do in fact consciously agree with its subconscious source. So, at this level, morality DOES come in. A person might be racist because of the things he was taught as a kid - he now hates asians and he has no choice in the source of that emotion; but he CAN change it by analysing the source of his emotion and changing his position. Is this not what Rand taught?

Ah, mwicckens, i just saw this after i posted: Clearly, morality DOES apply to preferences and/or desires, not just actions. What you are talking about here is whether something should be legal or illegal - in which case rights violations becomes critical. But morality does definitely go beyond that. Would you think it is (a)moral for one to be racist - as long as they do not act on their *preferred* ideas?

Mwickens, The point i am making is that we can judge homosexuality as immoral just as we DO judge paedophilia as immoral (or don't we?) - even without complete knowledge of the psychological roots of either of the two. I am not talking about ILLEGAL, but immoral. So, an action can be IMMORAL even if it does not cause harm to anyone else. The desire to have sex with children is itself AT LEAST *abnormal*, even if one does not act on it. If you agree with that, then on what basis would you deny that a sexual desire for a similar sex person is also at least abnormal? Finally, saying that something is very difficult to change does not say anything about whether it is right or wrong. If it CAN be changed, however difficult that is, then a rational person must struggle to change it, which is the point of human volition. (softwarenerd, you and i are probably on the same side on this!).

Hello, i am new to these forums, so my point might have been made by someone else already. So, here goes: If we accept the homosexual claim that they are born that way, why can't we then also accept the claim of those paedophiles who might claim that they are born that way? Do we need to first understand the psychological causes of paedophilia before we judge it as 'abnormal' at the very least? Should we postpone judgment (of paedophilia) to the day when biologists/psychologists will fully understand the roots of paedophilia?