Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What are YOUR criticisms of Objectivism?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

You seem to be somehow bugged by my word choice . . . would you prefer if "looking" was replaced by "searching"? I'm trying to be sure of what you are saying and asking before going further trying to discuss things. I'd find it much easier to address what you are inquiring about once my own inquiries of you are answered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be somehow bugged by my word choice . . . would you prefer if "looking" was replaced by "searching"? I'm trying to be sure of what you are saying and asking before going further trying to discuss things. I'd find it much easier to address what you are inquiring about once my own inquiries of you are answered.

Replacing 'looking' with 'searching' still you will get essentially the same response I just made before your last post above:

Again, what I am looking at right now is how said knowledge/fact/truth fits into Objectivism and what happens when one does.

While I am not making the claim myself, if you would like to claim or not to claim that "morals are inherent, omnipresent, eternal part of the fabric of reality kind of like gravity", then go ahead, while I look into what I said I am looking at. If said knowledge/fact/truth of mine I brought up, you think says that, then if you would like, go ahead and make the claim that it does or not.

To this:

Again, what I am searching for right now is how said knowledge/fact/truth fits into Objectivism and what happens when one does.

While I am not making the claim myself, if you would like to claim or not to claim that "morals are inherent, omnipresent, eternal part of the fabric of reality kind of like gravity", then go ahead, while I search into what I said I am searching into. If said knowledge/fact/truth of mine I brought up, you think says that, then if you would like, go ahead and make the claim that it does or not.

:smartass:

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, what I am looking at right now is how said knowledge/fact/truth fits into Objectivism and what happens when one does.

Perhaps another way to phrase the question: Are you looking to justify morality in an intrinsic way, because otherwise, morality is a vacuous term for you? Or at least, maybe you think that's what Objectivism seeks out to justify? It seems to me that you believe there is no objective right or wrong; it depends on your standards/goals/desires.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that you believe there is no objective right or wrong; it depends on your standards/goals/desires.

Believe? What I have been saying is not based upon belief, or what I want it to be, it simply is that way. I'm only identifying the facts of reality. My examples of rape and stealing, we have to make them wrong or right, by using might.

Rand says that a proper political-economic-social system, LFC, is the means of subordinating 'might' to 'right'. All I see taking place is might subordinating others might to whatever they make right/legal or make wrong/illegal in those examples. Might determines who gets their way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe? What I have been saying is not based upon belief, or what I want it to be, it simply is that way. I'm only identifying the facts of reality. My examples of rape and stealing, we have to make them wrong or right, by using might.

Rand says that a proper political-economic-social system, LFC, is the means of subordinating 'might' to 'right'. All I see taking place is might subordinating others might to whatever they make right/legal or make wrong/illegal in those examples. Might determines who gets their way.

Instead of going in circles let me see if I understand your position - You are saying that political rights are a form of metaphysical fact? There is no prior, simply our ability to enforce a standard (it can be any one standard) on everyone which then allows it to exist in nature (or at least in the area there is jurisdiction)? In effect, rights do not exist until someone forces others to use them so any prior discussion of ethics is meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of going in circles let me see if I understand your position - You are saying that political rights are a form of metaphysical fact?

NO!

I was talking about the fact that one must use might in order to make right/legal, wrong/illegal, rape, stealing, the initiate of force against another...

And the fact that 'drinking water' is just an action that cannot be judged as right or wrong, until you make a goal, such as the fundamental goal of living life, only then is that action made right. Metaphysically given fact that our bodies need water and there are metaphysically given consequences associated with that. What makes it wrong or right, me drinking water, is if I want to live. Then it's right to drink water.

In both cases, we make actions right or wrong. Using might. The ability to make a goal makes right and wrong the action of 'drinking water' as tdo we make right or wrong in our ability to make legal or illegal, make an action the wrong one to take towards you by the ability to communicate in some way that it is, like - stealing, raping, the initiation of force against you.

The fact that if you do not have the ability/physical strength (might) you cannot pick up a pen, open your mouth, gesture, communicate in some way to another that this or that is wrong to do towards you (what we call/define as 'stealing', 'rape', 'initiation of force against you'), then they will make it their right to take the actions, as long as they have the ability/physical strength (might) to make it their right.

And as far as political rights go, let's look at the fact that man does not have the 'right to life' automatically. Without might (mental/physical ability, physical strength), he not only hasn't conceptualized 'right to life' as such, but can't even excercise it if and when he does make it his right to his own life. He can be born into a system that MAKES it so, sure. Again, has to be made. Otherwise man is born, and that's that. Until he/or someone conceptualizes 'right to life', then he does not have that automatically. He's just man being man without any political/legal/conceptualized 'right'.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe? What I have been saying is not based upon belief, or what I want it to be, it simply is that way. I'm only identifying the facts of reality. My examples of rape and stealing, we have to make them wrong or right, by using might.

Rand says that a proper political-economic-social system, LFC, is the means of subordinating 'might' to 'right'. All I see taking place is might subordinating others might to whatever they make right/legal or make wrong/illegal in those examples. Might determines who gets their way.

We certainly have to make them illegal, and we do use might embodied in a government in order to do so. However, the question of what things it is right for the government to ban and what it is not has to be settled by moral philosophy in order to advocate for a different form of government.

Once again, you completely ignore the normative in favor of the descriptive. The truth is, we need both, one to understand the world around us as it is, and the other to show us the way the world should be, and what direction we should try to move it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We certainly have to make them illegal,

Thank you.

and we do use might embodied in a government in order to do so

Thank you.

However, the question of what things it is right for the government to ban and what it is not has to be settled by moral philosophy in order to advocate for a different form of government.

No, not what IS right for the government to ban, but what we want it to make it ban, make illegal.

]Once again, you completely ignore the normative in favor of the descriptive. The truth is, we need both, one to understand the world around us as it is, and the other to show us the way the world should be, and what direction we should try to move it.

And we both agree that in order to make it do so, one of the ways, is to understand the world around us as it is, our own goals, desires, wants, needs, what we think should or should not be banned, made wrong, made legal/illegal by those, why we do, etc. You can use reason to argue in favor of this, in favor of that, against this, against that. Absolutely no dispute there. I'm not ignoring reasons why, I've addressed why I would want to make it illegal/wrong to initiate the use of force against me and others in one of my examples. I simply am not paying any lipservice to morality, that's all. I made my political platform based solely upon wanting to make that so. I provide the 'why' when asked. Now I need votes for the "how" to make it. And did it by not using 'lies or lures', or lipservice to any moral code.

So, again, nothing anyone has said has changed those facts I listed. Is anyone, besides me, trying to place those facts within Objectivism now and see what they do to it, or are you going to continue not to, and ignore the facts highlighted above? If you do not accept those facts give reason why so we can see if what I said corresponds to reality, corresponds to man's nature. So far, it does.

Rand:

"A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyone’s permission."

So then, according to that, when born, man can do whatever his capacity is to be able to do, as it's his right to do so. This means, until someone says something is wrong of him to do, then he has every right (read: enough might), to do it. This much is very true. When he goes up to the woman and makes sexual advances towards her, her not doing anything to communicate to him that he cannot, then he's simply is at liberty to take that action. Same with the drinking of anothers water. You must use might then in order to make it not his right to do so then, as he is making it his right.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, again, nothing anyone has said has changed those facts I listed. Is anyone, besides me, trying to place those facts within Objectivism now and see what they do to it, or are you going to continue not to, and ignore the facts highlighted above? If you do not accept those facts give reason why so we can see if what I said corresponds to reality, corresponds to man's nature. So far, it does.

You seem to be laboring under the idea that Objectivism doesn't already take account of the facts you've illuminated about might and power. It does, which is precisely why it advocates as an ideal end goal a government which uses its own might to enforce the rights of its citizens as against the might of potential aggressors, both individuals and states. However, Objectivism also incorporates facts that you are missing, facts that form the foundation for an objective morality, for a stronger foundation of moral 'shoulds' than simply your "I want to." These are the objective facts of human surivival and flourishing, which allow us to argue for limited government as an objective requirement of human flourishing rather than as simply something that we want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, Objectivism also incorporates facts that you are missing, facts that form the foundation for an objective morality, for a stronger foundation of moral 'shoulds' than simply your "I want to." These are the objective facts of human surivival and flourishing, which allow us to argue for limited government as an objective requirement of human flourishing rather than as simply something that we want.

And I am arguing for the same thing, limited government, and both of us are not only in support of it because we want to be, but because we have our reasons to.

Objectivist: "laissez-faire capitalism is the only moral political ecomonic system that upholds and protects individual rights." So the reason is: because it's moral and I can explain how I arrived that it is.

Me: "In the wilderness I do not want anyone to initiate the use of force against me." In a social setting: "I want to make it wrong/illegal for others to not be able to initiate the use of force against me in all of it's forms it comes in." I look for ways to make that happen, look for the 'how'. But also be able to provide reasons as to why, (as that's how I arrived at wanting it in the first place) and doing that without 'lies and lures', without referencing speciafically any moral code in any way whatsoever, no religious commandment, no principle of indiviual rights.

You speak in terms of 'right', while I speak in terms of 'might' and me.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I am arguing for the same thing, limited government, and both of us are not only in support of it because we want to be, but because we have our reasons to.

Do you think that your reasons would apply to every individual (even if they didn't recognize them right now), by virtue of their nature, or do you consider them your own personal preferences?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that your reasons would apply to every individual (even if they didn't recognize them right now), by virtue of their nature, or do you consider them your own personal preferences?

Personal preferences, and relative to my own goals, wants, needs, desires, thinking, reasoning.

I can make it apply to others as well as me if I want to, that they cannot and also I cannot, initiate the use of force, in a social setting, then laissez-faire capitalism, capitalist society, market anarchism, etc. (self-defense writ large basically) would be what I would want to look into to help make what I want to happen. A means of achieving what I want.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personal preferences, and relative to my own goals, wants, needs, desires, thinking, reasoning.

I can make it apply to others as well as me if I want to, that they cannot and also I cannot, initiate the use of force, in a social setting, then laissez-faire capitalism, capitalist society, market anarchism, etc. (self-defense writ large basically) would be what I would want to look into to help make what I want to happen. A means of achieving what I want.

You can make it apply to others through might; but do you think that fundamentally there is something self-defeating about others using force to achieve their own individual goals? That is the kind of sentiment underlying the Objectivist political philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can make it apply to others through might;

Yes, excercising might, especially through the use of my mental abilities but also physical abilities in certain ways, etc. Right now, I can work with all my might if I want to towards limiting the government we have, phase out entitlement programs for Galt's sake, or if we get more into an Atlas Shrugged type situation, like at the end, then I would need something temporary like market anarcism and whatever private defense is most powerful/successful in defending will naturally become (at least I think so) much like a government (depending on it's use of force, of course, but you get the idea). But back to what I was saying, once the government has been limited, then transition to LFC, but without lipservice to moraily and principle of individual rights. It will be "individuals have the freedom/liberty to bear arms, to have a trial by jury, freedom of speech, etc." I can use the might I have to help finance and support such and such, vote such and such, do such and such.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO!

I was talking about the fact that one must use might in order to make right/legal, wrong/illegal, rape, stealing, the initiate of force against another...

And the fact that 'drinking water' is just an action that cannot be judged as right or wrong, until you make a goal, such as the fundamental goal of living life, only then is that action made right. Metaphysically given fact that our bodies need water and there are metaphysically given consequences associated with that. What makes it wrong or right, me drinking water, is if I want to live. Then it's right to drink water.

In both cases, we make actions right or wrong. Using might. The ability to make a goal makes right and wrong the action of 'drinking water' as tdo we make right or wrong in our ability to make legal or illegal, make an action the wrong one to take towards you by the ability to communicate in some way that it is, like - stealing, raping, the initiation of force against you.

The fact that if you do not have the ability/physical strength (might) you cannot pick up a pen, open your mouth, gesture, communicate in some way to another that this or that is wrong to do towards you (what we call/define as 'stealing', 'rape', 'initiation of force against you'), then they will make it their right to take the actions, as long as they have the ability/physical strength (might) to make it their right.

And as far as political rights go, let's look at the fact that man does not have the 'right to life' automatically. Without might (mental/physical ability, physical strength), he not only hasn't conceptualized 'right to life' as such, but can't even excercise it if and when he does make it his right to his own life. He can be born into a system that MAKES it so, sure. Again, has to be made. Otherwise man is born, and that's that. Until he/or someone conceptualizes 'right to life', then he does not have that automatically. He's just man being man without any political/legal/conceptualized 'right'.

OK, now we have a base to work. I think I’m getting the direction of your argument, or at least making headway to seeing it from your side :)

If I read you right then let see if I can bullet point your argument. Jump on in and correct my mistakes!

  • A person makes a goal.
  • It is only a goal in the person’s mind with no bearing in life at this stage.
  • To make it right that person needs to act on it (since it is not real yet).
  • Once he acts on it, it becomes right because he made it happen in the real world.
  • Since action makes something real and right, it naturally follows that this applies to all acts including how we deal with others.
  • “Might” at this point is just a way of saying human action since we are making a physical directed action to make something happen in our lives. We force ourselves on our surrounding to accomplish a goal, so to speak
  • Politics is in part the process of acting to make a goal real in society.
  • Since action in society involves everyone, including those who will not agree with the goal, action turns to force in order to enforce that goal on the dissenters.
  • Might is the real term in this case for one group to enforce its goal on another group, not to mention prevent them from forcing us (use their might) to live by their goal.

Thus, we come to the conclusion:

  • You and I decide LFC is a goal to pursue.
  • It is only a goal and neither good nor bad right now since it’s just floating in our minds un-acted upon.
  • We want it to be good so we’ll take action to make it real in the world.
  • We convince others to agree to our goal and as a group we accumulate enough might to remove the current political structure to install our political structure.
  • Our political structure now exists in the real world so it can be judged as good since we made it exist.

Am I on the right track here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I on the right track here?

Yes, thank you. I'm glad I'm being taken seriously, and you taking the time to bullet point it.

So far upon evaluating, I would like to make a change to this part (in blue):

  • A person makes a goal.
  • It is only a goal in the person’s mind with no bearing in life at this stage.
  • To make it right that person needs to act on it (since it is not real yet).
  • Once he acts on it, it becomes right because he made it happen in the real world.
  • Since action makes something real and right, it naturally follows that this applies to all acts including how we deal with others.

The last two points, changed/expanded some:

'once he acts on it, it becomes the right or wrong action to take relative to his goal, desire, want, need, context he is in'

'since only action can make that happen by not only making it take place in reality, but can make that action taken in reality right or wrong, or that they have the right/freedom/liberty to do that action if nothing is there making it wrong to take towards another, or another having enough might to make it the wrong action to take towards them, it naturally follows then that this applies to all actions man takes as long as he is taking that action relative to a goal, desire, want, need, context he is in, and how we deal with that which is around us and others in it relative to it. If man takes an action somehow without it being relative to a goal, desire, want, need, context he is in, then it's an action that can't be judged as the right or wrong action to take relative to those, as he is simply taking an action then, if you can't make it relative to something.'

Adding the 'drinking water' example would help illustrate the first one I changed.

And adding the 'stealing rape' one would help illustrate the second one I changed.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem man. Just stick with me here since it’s not always easy to “opt out” of how you see something and step in another man’s shoes.

OK, let’s see if I got the new bullet point here:

  • A person makes a goal.
  • It is only a goal in the person’s mind with no bearing in life at this stage.
  • To make it right that person needs to act on it (since it is not real yet).
  • Once he acts it is real now
  • His actions become good or bad relative to his goal to his goal. Good or bad is measured by how much closer he got to his goal.
  • “Might” at this point is just a way of saying human action since we are making a physically directed action to make something happen in our lives. We force ourselves on our surrounding to accomplish a goal, so to speak.
  • Since action makes something real and right (or wrong), it naturally follows that this applies to all acts when we are not stopped by another’s goals.
  • Society is where all members’ goals come in contact.
  • He who can accomplish his goals has the ability to judge them right or wrong since they are real and visible to be evaluated.
  • If you are stopped by someone the goal is morally neutral, it never happened so it cannot be evaluated.
  • The person who stopped you did act and can evaluate their action as right or wrong relative to their goal.
  • Since action in society involves everyone, including those who will not agree with the goal, action turns to force (in varying degrees) in order to enforce that goal on the dissenters.
  • Might is the real term in this case for our group to enforce its goal on another group, not to mention prevent them from forcing us (use their might) to live by their goal.

What about these propositions to fill in the gaps:

  • Are goals morally neutral before acted upon?
  • In other words, are actions only available for evaluation since they need to be judged according to the goal?
  • Does this make the goal the yard stick for right and wrong, or how well you achieve the goal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've narrowed it down.

A person makes a goal (he is excercising might in making that goal, for he has the power to, mental ability to, etc.):

  • His actions become good/right/wrong relative to his goal, desire, want, need, etc. Good,right is measured by how much closer he got to those.
  • “Might” at this point is just a way of saying human action since we are making a physically directed action to make something happen in our lives. We force ourselves on our surrounding to accomplish a goal, so to speak.

I'll look at what adding others does relative to the goal in a bit.

Your questions:

  • Are goals morally neutral before acted upon?

Yes, I think so.

  • In other words, are actions only available for evaluation since they need to be judged according to the goal?

One can evaluates the 'how's' to their goal, before taking action.

  • Does this make the goal the yard stick for right and wrong, or how well you achieve the goal?

Yes, for whatever gets you towards your goal/desire/want/need/etc. can be a right action to take relative to it.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

As a quick follow-up to our discussions here on my criticisms…

“Reality does not issue orders, on [Rand’s] view; it does not categorically command a person to prolong his life or to obey morality.”

Tara Smith. Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist (Kindle Locations 329-330). Kindle Edition.

So this is just another way (better way) of saying what I did say before about Mother Nature, giving birth to us, but not telling us what we should or should not do, does not command us to prolong, obey morality, or even to choose life over death.

But…

what I failed essentially to fully grasp was Rand’s solution to the ‘is - ought gap’, which I have fully now after reading for the first time Craig Biddle’s book - Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It and while rereading Tara Smith’s (the one referenced to above).

So my criticisms of Objectivism, actually in one aspect of it, turned out to be just another way of reaffirming the Objectivist morality.

But…

in regards to the other aspect (morality and man’s rights), I had to understand more about man’s nature. I’ve finally come to understand that we do not make but rather choose life or death, and by choosing life, since A is A, we must DISCOVER morality as a guide to living life as a human beings nature requires them to.

So, from man’s nature itself, not only do we discover morality (not make it), but also that morality stays with him no matter where he’s at, no matter what context he is in. In the social context that morality is translated into rights, which enables him to live as a human being (as opposed to say as a parasite) in that society if he chooses to. Since might is subordinated to right - those individuals in that particular society that do not choose live as a human being, as their nature requires them to - defensive might (the retaliatory use of force) can and will be used against them. Such might is placed under objective control by being subordinated to right, and in a system that functions by it’s purpose of recognizing, upholding, and protecting individuals domestically and internationally from other individuals that choose not to live as a human being nature requires them to do, but as parasites by not treating them as fellow human beings and as traders. Man has a certain identity, as being is to be something. To be man is to live in accordance with the nature of man qua man, not qua parasite, qua sheep, qua lion.

I began thinking after that Redbeard quote I quoted before in this thread that since man can act parasitically, aggressively, that anything that man is capable of doing, or is in the capacity of his ability to do, that it is simply a part of his nature. I can see how wrong it was in thinking in such a manner, and all this only served to reaffirm Objectivism to me, that much more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Are you asking for criticisms of Objectivism's "core" positions, or Rand's derivative views based on those positions? The first you listed would be (arguably) categorized in the former, and the second and third in the latter.

I'm sorry, but I believe the second is of the former. I have often heard Rand's take on sex described as the "Objectivist stance on sex." Sex being described as intended as a celebration of life between egoists. I personally agree that this is a bit "mystical." I am not saying that sex cannot be as she described it, only that it is not immoral to engage in sex for other reasons.

Edited by Summer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but I believe the second is of the former. I have often heard Rand's take on sex described as the "Objectivist stance on sex." Sex being described as intended as a celebration of life between egoists. I personally agree that this is a bit "mystical." I am not saying that sex cannot be as she described it, only that it is not immoral to engage in sex for other reasons.

Rand never suggested that either. It is a celebration of life and of values, especially between two people, but it is not necessarily always the heroic end game either. It's about context as well. The immorality is if one did it as a form of escape, second-handedness, or other such destructive urge.

For example, you don't tell a teen that they should hold off on sex because they should stay "pure" for some holy ritual to be performed in the future but because practically speaking the teen likely needs to grow up and be able to make better choices in partners because sex is that important. Treating it too casually can be self-destructive, especially in light of the combined progressive anti-education and religious miss-education done on… well everything of value. But once the teen is a healthy adult having sex for any number of reasons is valid, as long as the teen is doing so for properly egoist reasons and not just engage in auto-pilot self-destruction.

The purpose of ethics is to help men thrive and the reward is happiness. Emotions are the reward for living well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but I believe the second is of the former. I have often heard Rand's take on sex described as the "Objectivist stance on sex." Sex being described as intended as a celebration of life between egoists. I personally agree that this is a bit "mystical." I am not saying that sex cannot be as she described it, only that it is not immoral to engage in sex for other reasons.

There may be some misunderstanding here. I was saying that Rand's views on sex weren't fundamental to her philosophy, meaning that her basic philosophic principles would still constitute a whole philosophic system had she never said anything about sex. So, what she wrote and spoke about sex were derivative of Objectivism. The second half of what you wrote seems to suggest you agree with that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, you don't tell a teen that they should hold off on sex because they should stay "pure" for some holy ritual to be performed in the future but because practically speaking the teen likely needs to grow up and be able to make better choices in partners because sex that important. Treating it too casually can be self-destructive, especially in light of the combined progressive anti-education and religious miss-education done on… well everything of value. But once the teen is a healthy adult having sex for any number of reasons is valid, as long as the teen is doing so for properly egoist reasons and not just engage in auto-pilot self-destruction.

I agree with your emphasis on context, but I don't with your emphasis on "that important." Why is sex inherently more important than other values? Important, yes, fun and different and enjoyable, but why "that important"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but I believe the second is of the former. I have often heard Rand's take on sex described as the "Objectivist stance on sex." Sex being described as intended as a celebration of life between egoists. I personally agree that this is a bit "mystical." I am not saying that sex cannot be as she described it, only that it is not immoral to engage in sex for other reasons.

I'm gonna have to agree with you that understanding the role of sex in human relationships does, to some degree, belong in the realm of philosophy. Sex is an essential part of man's life, and it is the role of philosophy to guide man's choices regarding sex. Namely, it is the role of philosophy to encourage men to have sex, and to help form one's hierarchy of values (based on which men make all their choices, including their choice of sexual partners).

It is also the role of philosophy to point out that last fact: that, admit or deny it, it is a fact that one DOES make one's choices based on one's values, and that one's choice of sexual partners reflects on one's values just like all other choices.

But that's it. Philosophy does not make psychological or medical claims for instance (i.e. one kind of sex is unhealthy, another is not). Whatever Rand believed about that, she believed it as a follower of the medical sciences at the time, not as a philosopher.

If you want an impossible to misunderstand, factual description of the Objectivist stance on sex, she was asked that very question: What philosophy specifically has to say on the subject of sex? She answered: "It says that sex is good.". To that, I would only add one other point she made (a point she made very clear in AS, when discussing Jim Taggart's choice of sex partners), that sex does indeed unavoidably reflect on one's values. And of course, what moral principles ought to guide one's values is a part of philosophy that is relevant to the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your emphasis on context, but I don't with your emphasis on "that important." Why is sex inherently more important than other values? Important, yes, fun and different and enjoyable, but why "that important"?

If I implied that it was more important as a value then that was a mistake, I did not mean to say that. By "that important" means sex is good and important part of life and a kid shouldn't just run out and do it (neccessarily) when they are still learning who they are and when the average kid is a psychological firestorm. Especially in today's world where such kids are paralized by the schools in the first palce. Sex is more important than what religion or modern pop-philosophy acts. I think telling a kid that it is good and so good it is important gets the message across that it is OK to have sex but they should be more thoughtfull.

Link to comment
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...