Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Michael F. Greaves

Regulars
  • Posts

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0
  • Website URL
    http://

Previous Fields

  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Michael F. Greaves's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/7)

0

Reputation

  1. Well your immortal robot is impossible; not it's non-existence. I think that it would just suffice to say that for a hypothetical machine, the basis for it's values would be different than that of a living animal (i.e. you or me).
  2. Excellent post, Dan; and I will add your paper to my reading list. However, I don't think that your argument is perfectly sound. I think that you are making an unstated assumption: that homos and heteros, of the same physical sex, experience gender the same way. I believe that they usually do not. There is strong scientific evidence that most homo men displayed gender-variant behaviour as small boys. It certainly was true in my case. I started to hide such behaviour when I was 5 or 6, but gender-variant feelings are a part of my sexuality. I don't think that your argument is valid for me, but I am reserving judgement on your work for now. My take on the morality of being homo is incredibly simple: I hold that being true to yourself is a moral requirement. It would be immoral for me to live a straight life. However, self-destructive behaviour is highly immoral, so this prescribes serious limitations on my activities, for the sake of hygiene and safety. This is the only satisfactory resolution possible, in my judgement. Being straight might be more optimal for some theoretical alternate variation of my self; but not for my actual self. So the term "suboptimal" may be problematic in this context, except in reference to my point about safety.
×
×
  • Create New...