Automatic values

[brian0918]

[The hand-walker] has chosen to live contrary to his identity as a man. This fundamental contradiction is immoral because it is a contradiction of one's nature.

Then I believe you have used more qualities than are necessary to identify what is a man.

this subject actually means really little to me, as I think the immorality involved is minor at worst, and doesn't in general affect me in any way.

That an error on your part, when applied to a specific situation, results in a conclusion that is of little concern does not change the fact that there is a fundamental error on your part, nor that it can potentially lead to conclusions of much larger concern.

Trust me, no part of me is gay.

Ipse dixit. I'm going to have to see some actual evidence.

Edited July 22, 2008 by brian0918

[EC]

Then I believe you have used more qualities than are necessary to identify what is a man.

Wrong all attributes of a man are included in his conceptual definition, with rational animal being the essential attributes.

That an error on your part, when applied to a specific situation, results in a conclusion that is of little concern does not change the fact that there is a fundamental error on your part, nor that it can potentially lead to conclusions of much larger concern.

I still have not seen where my alleged "error" lies. If there is one, and it is proven to me, then I'll grant your premise.

Ipse dixit. I'm going to have to see some actual evidence.

I am the final authority on myself. We're not even going there because that's the last I have to say on that.

[brian0918]

The two must be taken together, because metaphysically, they are equally important when deciding how a man ought to act.

And I believe that what a man ought to do is defined by his will, while his body simply tells him what he can do. A man with legs can walk, but only he decides whether or not he ought to walk. Likewise, a man without legs cannot walk, and must take that into consideration when deciding what he ought to do.

That is, unless we're each using different definitions of the word "ought".

Wrong. I used the word essence as, and for the same reason, Miss Rand does when I discussed this line of thought. An essence is a concept'ss most important attribute, but it by no means includes everything that the concept does.

If one of the attributes of the identity of a man depends on one of the attributes of the identity of a woman, and vice versa, then doesn't the identity of a man depend on the identity of a woman, and vice versa?

[brian0918]

Wrong all attributes of a man are included in his conceptual definition, with rational animal being the essential attributes.

Yes, but you are defining heterosexuality as one of the attributes of being man. That I do not believe you have shown.

It seems more like circular reasoning to me. "Man, as a rational being by nature, looks at his nature and concludes that he should be heterosexual, because it is in his nature to be heterosexual."

Or, put another way: "Why is homosexuality immoral? Because it goes against man's nature. Why does it go against man's nature? Because man is a rational being. Why is it irrational to be homosexual? Because man is rational by nature and homosexuality goes against man's nature"

Or maybe I have misunderstood what you said. Can you put it all down into one post in the way I have attempted in the quote above?

Here's another example of what you are doing: A child is born in Cleveland, Ohio. That child is tabula rasa from the start. He looks around at his world and observes that everyone is an Indians fan. As a rational being, he therefore rationally concludes that it is in his nature to be an Indians fan. Therefore because he arrived at his conclusion through rational thinking, and rational thinking is part of man's nature, and it is moral to act according to your nature, it is immoral to support the Tigers.

Edited July 22, 2008 by brian0918

[Marc K.]

My point is that such a definition would be made in order to support the premise that instincts do not exist in man.

No, that's backwards. You observe reality and then identify it with a definition.

Rand makes a case for automatic values in man as evidenced by the pleasure/pain mechanism.

I'd love to see a citation, here's a couple:

An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An "instinct" is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. -- from Galt's speech

Since man has no automatic knowledge, he can have no automatic values; since he has no innate ideas, he can have no innate value judgements. -- "The Objectivist Ethics"

Is it a coincidence that sex is responsible for survival of the species but not survival of the individual?

This is wrong. Survival of the individual is responsible for survival of the species.

[KendallJ]

Wrong all attributes of a man are included in his conceptual definition, with rational animal being the essential attributes.

Again, if you follow this line of thinking, then one must pass moral judgement on sex without procreation.

Edited July 22, 2008 by KendallJ

[KendallJ]

I still have not seen where my alleged "error" lies. If there is one, and it is proven to me, then I'll grant your premise.

I showed it to you. See #44

[EC]

Again, if you follow this line of thinking, then one must pass moral judgement on sex without procreation.

I do, and Miss Rand did. She simply said, "Sex is good", "good" being a human value and therefore a moral judgment. You're stating it such that you assume the judgment must be negative, that's simply NOT true.

[KevinDW78]

I'm left-handed too, so I could have the same claim thrown at me by a similarly crass individual.

OMG! Has the whole WORLD gone left-handed!?! I can't turn on the tv these days without seeing left-handedness shoved in my face everywhere! lol

A man with legs can walk, but only he decides whether or not he ought to walk.

This is interesting. I think we could lop off (no pun intended) a huge aspect of this debate if we simply said, What about a "gay" man who has his sexual appendages surgically removed. Is he? Can he? still be "gay"?

Edited July 22, 2008 by KevinDW78

[KendallJ]

I do, and Miss Rand did. She simply said, "Sex is good", "good" being a human value and therefore a moral judgment. You're stating it such that you assume the judgment must be negative, that's simply NOT true.

Correct, but that is not what you're doing in the homosexual case. Rand didnt' say that because tab a fits into slot b that only a certain kind of sex is good. Yet, if you follow your line of thinking in the homosexual example, then only heterosexual sex, a certain kind of sex, is good. Geez what about masturbation? is that immoral as well?

I'm stating it as though the physical aspect of sex, even through it's clear that the only purpose for which male/female parts are necessary and sufficient is procreation, is irrelevant. It is as such in the case of homosexuality as well.

The irony of course is that you're arguing on exactly the opposite side in the stripper thread as well.

Edited July 22, 2008 by KendallJ

[Jake]

EC, you have not responded to some of the sharper critiques of your position, like James' #42 and Kendall's #44.

You also ignored my last post to the "Prager's False Equation" thread.

This fundamental contradiction is immoral because it is a contradiction of one's nature.

In the strictest sense of "nature", man cannot choose to act against his nature (causality). Are you saying it's immoral, because it is an attempt to contradict one's nature? If you are going to use the word "nature" in a meaning other than that which is used in the Laws of Identity/Causality, I think you should explicitly define it. A man can choose to try to contradict his nature. He can't choose to be a bird (Identity), but he could choose to jump off a cliff, and try to fly like a bird by flapping his arms. The Law of Causality would win, and the man would die upon hitting the ground. This attempt to contradict his nature is immoral.

As I said in the Prager's thread: In order to judge homosexuality as immoral, you must show that:

1) Homosexuality is a choice (not just the acts, but also the desires), and

2) Homosexuality is harmful to one's life (since it is clearly not harmful to others' lives).

I hold that you have done neither. I also think that the argument from physical form is a rationalization of one's disgust with the "unnaturalness" of homosexuality.

As I understand it, the majority of women (about 70%) do not reach orgasm through penile-vaginal intercourse alone (without other stimulation). If you hold that morally proper sex is determined by the physical form of men and women, do you believe clittoral stimulation is immoral? What part of a man's body is the Tab A for the clittoral Slot B? Is it moral for 70% of women to resign themselves never to climax?

[~Sophia~]

Why can't the reverse be true? I.e., what if the choice to become a homosexual lead to these differences in the brain.

Because very young children show gender-conforming or gender-non conforming behavioral tendencies (in terms of interests, activities, temperament, level of verious skill) which then correlate with their sexual orientation later in life. This is not 100% but the correlation is very high (over 75%). One reason why this is not 100% is most likely because this is not clear cut either/or situation but rather a spectrum depending, for example, on the degree of hormonal deviation from the "normal conditions" during early stages of brain development. So if you are only slightly gender non-conforming you may still become heterosexual (it won't be a huge stretch in that case - and thus perhaps within someone's conscious choice).

So this is the foundation on top of which nurture/environmental factors influence us and to what degree they will be significant triggers will depend on someone's predispositions (as explained above). Our violitional capacity then operates in that biological/environmental context.

I guess, what I am trying to say is that - this is not as cut and dry as you making it to be, EC (and thus you are being quiet unjust in your evaluation). Yes we are not just a body but we are also not just a "soul" either.

[brian0918]

Because very young children show gender-conforming or gender-non conforming behavioral tendencies (in terms of interests, activities, temperament, level of verious skill) which then correlate with their sexual orientation later in life. This is not 100% but the correlation is very high (over 75%). One reason why this is not 100% is most likely because this is not clear cut either/or situation but rather a spectrum depending, for example, on the degree of hormonal deviation from the "normal conditions" during early stages of brain development. So if you are only slightly gender non-conforming you may still become heterosexual (it won't be a huge stretch in that case - and thus perhaps within someone's conscious choice).

Are you using the term "gender conforming" correctly? I take it to refer to how much you identify yourself with a particular gender. Gender non-conformance leads to transgenderedness - an individual with male genetalia believing themselves to be - or picturing their ideal self to be - a woman, and vice versa. This leads such individuals to have sex change operations, and pursue people of the same sex who are straight.

This is entirely different from the gay/straight discussion. Both involve identification of self and sexual attraction, but each comes to a different personal conclusion.

I'm half-tempted to start the same discussion over again on the topic of transgenderedness, if it hasn't already been done. (it has)

Edited July 22, 2008 by brian0918

[KevinDW78]

I agree that there is a common misconception that "gay" means you would rather be a woman, or act like a woman. That is just a stereotype.

[EC]

Correct, but that is not what you're doing in the homosexual case. Rand didnt' say that because tab a fits into slot b that only a certain kind of sex is good. Yet, if you follow your line of thinking in the homosexual example, then only heterosexual sex, a certain kind of sex, is good. Geez what about masturbation? is that immoral as well?

What about beastiality? Is that not immoral, it is a type of sex.

I'm stating it as though the physical aspect of sex, even through it's clear that the only purpose for which male/female parts are necessary and sufficient is procreation, is irrelevant. It is as such in the case of homosexuality as well.

Really? I would like to see one attempt any type of sexual activity, accept maybe fantasy, without the requisite sex organs. It's simply impossible.

The irony of course is that you're arguing on exactly the opposite side in the stripper thread as well.

Nope the two are perfectly consistent. There is nothing wrong with one having a sexual nature and using it as one pleases assuming they are not doing it under any false pretenses or contradictions.

[~Sophia~]

Are you using the term "gender conforming" correctly? I take it to refer to how much you identify yourself with a particular gender.

Yes it can mean that as well. But it is also used by researchers to describe preference for particular activities. They found that it was a causal antecedent of later sexual orientation for both men and women who otherwise did not have issues/confusions about their sexual identity (they did not want to be/felt like the other sex).

Edited July 22, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[KendallJ]

What about beastiality? Is that not immoral, it is a type of sex.

I dont' know. You tell me. You did say that Rand did say that sex is good. In fact, you emphasized that she said simply that sex was good.

Really? I would like to see one attempt any type of sexual activity, accept maybe fantasy, without the requisite sex organs. It's simply impossible.

You're equating sex with sexual activity. It's context dropping. Straw man.

Nope the two are perfectly consistent. There is nothing wrong with one having a sexual nature and using it as one pleases assuming they are not doing it under any false pretenses or contradictions.

Why isn't sex devoid of the purpose of procreation a contradiction? It most certainly violates the nature of the sex organs in and of themselves.

Edited July 22, 2008 by KendallJ

[Jake]

Really? I would like to see one attempt any type of sexual activity, accept maybe fantasy, without the requisite sex organs. It's simply impossible.

(Italics yours)

By your reasoning, one of these three statements must be true:

1) Using one's hand on oneself or another's body is not a sexual activity, or

2) Hands are sex organs, or

3) In a sexual activity between two people, only one person's sex organ must be involved.

Which of these three are you claiming to be true?

[EC]

In the strictest sense of "nature", man cannot choose to act against his nature (causality).

Wrong. An example would be a man choosing to evade the need to think. Man is actually the only creature who can act contrary to his nature because he possesses volition.

To the extent that a man is guided by his rational judgment, he acts in accordance with the requirements of his nature and, to that extent, succeeds in achieving a human form of survival and well-being; to the extent that he acts irrationally, he acts as his own destroyer.

But man exists and his mind exists. Both are part of nature, both possess a specific identity. The attribute of volition does not contradict the fact of identity, just as the existence of living organisms does not contradict the existence of inanimate matter. Living organisms possess the power of self-initiated motion, which inanimate matter does not possess; man’s consciousness possesses the power of self-initiated motion in the realm of cognition (thinking), which the consciousnesses of other living species do not possess. But just as animals are able to move only in accordance with the nature of their bodies, so man is able to initiate and direct his mental action only in accordance with the nature (the identity) of his consciousness. His volition is limited to his cognitive processes; he has the power to identify (and to conceive of rearranging) the elements of reality, but not the power to alter them. He has the power to use his cognitive faculty as its nature requires, but not the power to alter it nor to escape the consequences of its misuse. He has the power to suspend, evade, corrupt or subvert his perception of reality, but not the power to escape the existential and psychological disasters that follow. (The use or misuse of his cognitive faculty determines a man’s choice of values, which determine his emotions and his character. It is in this sense that man is a being of self-made soul.)

“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,”

Philosophy: Who Needs It, 26

italics mine

Are you saying it's immoral, because it is an attempt to contradict one's nature?

No, it is more than an attempt. A man can't magically morph into a woman (or anything else) if that's what you mean but psychologically he can act counter to the actions that a proper man should take.

If you are going to use the word "nature" in a meaning other than that which is used in the Laws of Identity/Causality, I think you should explicitly define it.

...is the law ofidentity:to be is to be something, to have a nature, to possess identity. A thing is itself; or, in the traditional formusla, A is A. The "identity"of an existent means that which it is, the sum of its attributes or characteristics.

Bold mine.

The metaphysical fact about man that underlies thesetruths is that man is not a battlefield of contending dimensions, spiritual and physical. He is, in Ayn Rand's words, "an indivisivble entity, an integrated unit of two attributes: of matter and conciousness." Conciousness in his case takes the form of mind, i.e., a conceptual faculty; matter, of a certain kind of organic structure. Each of these attributes is indispensable to the other and to the total entity.

bold mine

Sex is a physical capacity in the service of a spiritual need. It reflects not man's body alone nor his mind alone, but their integration. As in all such cases, the mind is the ruling factor.

bold mine

A man can choose to try to contradict his nature. He can't choose to be a bird (Identity), but he could choose to jump off a cliff, and try to fly like a bird by flapping his arms. The Law of Causality would win, and the man would die upon hitting the ground. This attempt to contradict his nature is immoral.

Yes, but this is also called stupidity, and is NOT what I mean. A man can psychologically contradict his nature in the same way that he can evade thinking. This is what I mean.

As I said in the Prager's thread: In order to judge homosexuality as immoral, you must show that:

1) Homosexuality is a choice (not just the acts, but also the desires),

bold mine.

But everything he needs or desires has to be learned, discovered and produced by him--by his own choice, by his own effort, by his own mind.

bold mine.

As the context here is an Objectivist forum it is safe to assume for the sake of argument that the above quotation is correct, and no further "proof" is needed.

and

2) Homosexuality is harmful to one's life (since it is clearly not harmful to others' lives).

Weak reason--homosexuals for the most part are social outcasts (which as I said earlier mean little to a properly selfish individual). Stronger reason--all psychological contradictions are harmful to one's soul in some way however minor.

As I understand it, the majority of women (about 70%) do not reach orgasm through penile-vaginal intercourse alone (without other stimulation). If you hold that morally proper sex is determined by the physical form of men and women, do you believe clittoral stimulation is immoral? What part of a man's body is the Tab A for the clittoral Slot B? Is it moral for 70% of women to resign themselves never to climax?

I never claimed that only vaginal intercourse is moral nor does it follow from my premises. All I claimed is that it is obvious that men and women are of slightly different identities and that these are obviously complimentary. Since, "Sex is a physical capacity in the service of a spiritual need," what types of sex these compatible beings have is irrelevant. And masturbation is in a class by itself, it is simply a form of self-love, which of course is moral.

[EC]

Because very young children show gender-conforming or gender-non conforming behavioral tendencies (in terms of interests, activities, temperament, level of verious skill) which then correlate with their sexual orientation later in life...

I don't remember explicitly forming the concept table, doggie, or Momma, but I did at a very young age.

This quote from VOS from above applies here also.

But everything he needs or desires has to be learned, discovered and produced by him--by his own choice, by his own effort, by his own mind.

Bold mine.

I agree that there is a common misconception that "gay" means you would rather be a woman, or act like a woman. That is just a stereotype.

I didn't mean that exactly, I meant that similar (not identical) thinking patterns would yield similar results of brain scans because the coding is similar.

[EC]

I dont' know. You tell me. You did say that Rand did say that sex is good. In fact, you emphasized that she said simply that sex was good.

You're context dropping here I'm sure you know that is NOT moral, and for a similar reason it unnatural for a man to have sex with an animal, the two are obviously NOT compatible. It's not about sticking tabs in slots, there is of course a process of volition involved in sex.

The following that I also quoted above is relevant.

Sex is a physical capacity in the service of a spiritual need. It reflects not man's body alone nor his mind alone, but their integration. As in all such cases, the mind is the ruling factor.

You're equating sex with sexual activity. It's context dropping. Straw man.

The above quote shows that you are wrong, but maybe I could have phrased it better.

Why isn't sex devoid of the purpose of procreation a contradiction? It most certainly violates the nature of the sex organs in and of themselves.

Again, see quote above.

(Italics yours)

By your reasoning, one of these three statements must be true:

1) Using one's hand on oneself or another's body is not a sexual activity, or

2) Hands are sex organs, or

3) In a sexual activity between two people, only one person's sex organ must be involved.

Which of these three are you claiming to be true?

You are incorrect it implies none of the above. The mind is the essential sex organ in humans, that's why I included fantasy, but of course it is not the only one.

[Jake]

Wrong. An example would be a man choosing to evade the need to think. Man is actually the only creature who can act contrary to his nature because he possesses volition.

The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature...

bold mine - This is why we need to be exacting in our definitions and word choice.

Yes, but this is also called stupidity, and is NOT what I mean. A man can psychologically contradict his nature in the same way that he can evade thinking. This is what I mean.

But everything he needs or desires has to be learned, discovered and produced by him--by his own choice, by his own effort, by his own mind.

hmmm... I'll have to think about this premise. We may need to discuss the definition of desire, especially since I certainly don't remember ever choosing to desire broccoli or choosing not to desire olives.

As the context here is an Objectivist forum it is safe to assume for the sake of argument that the above quotation is correct, and no further "proof" is needed.

But this is exactly what Ayn Rand did not want of Objectivists, to swallow and regurgitate one-liner quotes without full digestion and understanding. For the sake of argument, perhaps we can use these two definitions:

1) Desire - a longing or craving, as for something that brings satisfaction or enjoyment, predicated at least implicitly on prior choices

2) Urge - an involuntary, natural, or instinctive impulse, which is biologically driven and independent of choice

(The plain text is from dictionary.com. The italics are mine for the sake of specificity.)

I defy you to prove that homosexuality is a desire rather than an urge.

You are incorrect it implies none of the above. The mind is the essential sex organ in humans, that's why I included fantasy, but of course it is not the only one.

And yet you specifically mentioned sex organs to counter Kendall's argument that you are saying only a physically specific type of sex is moral...

I don't think you can infer all that you do from that OPAR quote. The last part of that quote is "As in all such cases, the mind is the ruling factor." Does this not mean that physical compatibility is secondary or subordinate to mental compatibility? I think the mind/body integration mentioned in the quote means that the mind and body are integrated in a similar way that they would be while engaged in martial arts, or flying an aircraft, etc., albeit for fulfilling a different (spiritual) need. I don't think "integration" here should be interpreted to mean that male minds desire domination, and the penis is a dominating sex organ, or vice versa for female minds and vaginas.

Edited July 22, 2008 by Jake

[~Sophia~]

I don't remember explicitly forming the concept table, doggie, or Momma, but I did at a very young age.

What concept are you refering to? Very young children do not have a concept (or awareness) of sexuality.

As to the quote. We operate within our biological framework. The mind does not exist independent of the brain and our brain is a physical entity subjected to environmental influences from even before we are born.

Edited July 23, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[EC]

What concept are you refering to? Very young children do not have a concept (or awareness) of sexuality.

As to the quote. We operate within our biological framework. The mind does not exist independent of the brain and our brain is a physical entity subjected to environmental influences from even before we are born.

I suppose I meant that the fundamentals of sexual awarness are just begining to be formed; just like all other human knowledge. Humans possess NO instincts or urges, everything that becomes part of one's character is learned either implicitly or explicitly.

[~Sophia~]

I suppose I meant that the fundamentals of sexual awarness are just begining to be formed; just like all other human knowledge.

No, EC you are wrong. Very young children don't have sexual awareness.

Humans possess NO instincts or urges...

I definately do have sexual urges - the frequency of which depend on where I am in my menstrual cycle. This is not conceptual. It is my body's physiological need.