Philosophical Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage

[The Thinker]

So we have laws against things like murder or rape or theft because we subjectively do not want to live in a society where these behaviors run rampant. We subjectively prefer order to disorder. These reasons would not conform to your criterion yet these are not irrational reasons - are they?

Again, we are only talking about an aspect of my logical criteria. One part. Any justice system will have to adhere to this one aspect in order to be rational - even if the rest of the system is irrational. We have laws against things like murder or rape or theft and we adhere to the objective logical criterion that the more rationally capable a person is, the more we attribute legal culpability to violations of these laws - which isn't merely my opinion or anyone else's, it's objectively logical. That's why it is objectively irrational to put 5 month old infants in jail, and to legally treat 45 year olds the same way we treat infants.

Thinker we both know that a deductive argument can be false, depending on the premises and conclusion. I'm not questioning logic but your premises and conclusion. And remember your argument has stopped at P3, you have not offered a conclusion yet. Never mind the problems with quantifying suffering or pleasure, which in itself may make your whole endeavor unworkable, and therefore useless.

There's no point in me making a conclusion yet if we are stuck on P3 - which you still haven't refuted. So far you've been saying that the objective logical criterion that the more rationally capable a person is, the more we attribute legal culpability to violations of laws - is merely a matter of subjective opinion, and no objective logic. That's totally absurd, and you would never be saying this if you weren't in the position of having to deny my ethical logic is objective so you don't have to concede the argument.

Yes, and what follows from that? That it would be immoral to kill the cow for my satisfaction?

Not necessarily. It depends on how much the cow suffers, and whether or not you can get other food. It follows that the more sentient a being is, the more ethical concern it should have. Humans have more sentience than animals, that's why it makes sense to care for humans more than animals in general.

[seer]

Again, we are only talking about an aspect of my logical criteria. One part. Any justice system will have to adhere to this one aspect in order to be rational - even if the rest of the system is irrational. We have laws against things like murder or rape or theft and we adhere to the objective logical criterion that the more rationally capable a person is, the more we attribute legal culpability to violations of these laws - which isn't merely my opinion or anyone else's, it's objectively logical. That's why it is objectively irrational to put 5 month old infants in jail, and to legally treat 45 year olds the same way we treat infants.

So again, we have laws against things like murder or rape or theft because we subjectively do not want to live in a society where these behaviors run rampant. We subjectively prefer order to disorder. Are you saying that these laws are then irrational?

There's no point in me making a conclusion yet if we are stuck on P3 - which you still haven't refuted. So far you've been saying that the objective logical criterion that the more rationally capable a person is, the more we attribute legal culpability to violations of laws - is merely a matter of subjective opinion, and no objective logic. That's totally absurd, and you would never be saying this if you weren't in the position of having to deny my ethical logic is objective so you don't have to concede the argument.

Well Thinker of course it is subjective. It is our collective opinion that a more mature human being is more culpable for his behavior. There is nothing, logically, that says that necessarily follows. Unless you go to P4 or a conclusion you have not squared the circle.

Not necessarily. It depends on how much the cow suffers, and whether or not you can get other food. It follows that the more sentient a being is, the more ethical concern it should have. Humans have more sentience than animals, that's why it makes sense to care for humans more than animals in general.

Yet you would choose the life of a mentally low functioning human over a mentally high functioning ape. Remember when that kid fell into the ape cage recently and they shot the ape in the head? What if that kid was only, let's say, a year old - that ape would have been much more self-aware than the kid - would you have still shot the ape to save the child?

[The Thinker]

So again, we have laws against things like murder or rape or theft because we subjectively do not want to live in a society where these behaviors run rampant. We subjectively prefer order to disorder. Are you saying that these laws are then irrational?

No, I'm saying it is irrational to think 5 months old should have the same legal culpability as 45 year olds. You on the other hand think this is rational. If you deny this and think it is irrational, tell me why you think it is irrational. Your opinion must be based on something logical. Or if it isn't, admit your opinion is not based on logic, but is instead based on something illogical.

Well Thinker of course it is subjective. It is our collective opinion that a more mature human being is more culpable for his behavior. There is nothing, logically, that says that necessarily follows. Unless you go to P4 or a conclusion you have not squared the circle.

That's totally BS. You know, it's possible to have a subjective opinion that turns out to be factual. It was once a person's opinion that the earth was round.

There is something totally objective and logical that entails from the premise that legal culpability depends on rational capability. If you had zero rational capability, you would have zero legal culpability. If you had 100% rational capability, you'd have 100% legal culpability. If you had 50% rational capability, you'd have 50% legal culpability.

Yet you would choose the life of a mentally low functioning human over a mentally high functioning ape. Remember when that kid fell into the ape cage recently and they shot the ape in the head? What if that kid was only, let's say, a year old - that ape would have been much more self-aware than the kid - would you have still shot the ape to save the child?

I didn't see that video in full, but it would depend on whether it was going to attack the child. Killing in self defense is always justified regardless of sentience.

[seer]

No, I'm saying it is irrational to think 5 months old should have the same legal culpability as 45 year olds. You on the other hand think this is rational. If you deny this and think it is irrational, tell me why you think it is irrational. Your opinion must be based on something logical. Or if it isn't, admit your opinion is not based on logic, but is instead based on something illogical.

Thinker you keep avoiding my point: Are you saying that laws against murder, rape, theft, etc are irrational because we subjectively would not want to live in such a society? That those reasons make those laws irrational?

That's totally BS. You know, it's possible to have a subjective opinion that turns out to be factual. It was once a person's opinion that the earth was round.

That does mean that your point logically follows.

There is something totally objective and logical that entails from the premise that legal culpability depends on rational capability. If you had zero rational capability, you would have zero legal culpability. If you had 100% rational capability, you'd have 100% legal culpability. If you had 50% rational capability, you'd have 50% legal culpability.

But again, we have been making these distinctions without appeal to deductive logic for centuries. Were these distinctions irrational for not appealing to your logic? But I'm still waiting for P4 or your conclusion.

I didn't see that video in full, but it would depend on whether it was going to attack the child. Killing in self defense is always justified regardless of sentience.

So here the less self-aware creature takes precedence over the more self-aware creature? What if you only had enough food to feed and save one? Which one would you choose?

[The Thinker]

Thinker you keep avoiding my point: Are you saying that laws against murder, rape, theft, etc are irrational because we subjectively would not want to live in such a society? That those reasons make those laws irrational?

seer, you keep avoiding my point. And that is that there is an objective rational process that every legal system will have to use, if it wants to be rational. That objective logic is a part of my moral argument. You on the other hand think this is irrational. If you deny this and think it is rational to judge infants the same way we do 40 year olds, tell me why you think it is rational. Your opinion must be based on something logical. Or if it isn't, admit your opinion is not based on logic, but is instead based on something illogical. I've never said any of those things are irrational.

That does mean that your point logically follows.

Yes. I've been argument my point logically follows from my premise.

But again, we have been making these distinctions without appeal to deductive logic for centuries. Were these distinctions irrational for not appealing to your logic? But I'm still waiting for P4 or your conclusion.

You make no sense. We don't need to appeal to formal logic in order to do things that are logical. If that weren't the case we wouldn't have been able to do anything logical before formal logic was constructed - which is absurd. And there is no logic that is mine. My logic appeals to objective logic any rational person can recognize.

So here the less self-aware creature takes precedence over the more self-aware creature? What if you only had enough food to feed and save one? Which one would you choose?

It is not the case that an ape is more sentient than a human child, so your whole scenario isn't really relevant.

[seer]

seer, you keep avoiding my point. And that is that there is an objective rational process that every legal system will have to use, if it wants to be rational. That objective logic is a part of my moral argument. You on the other hand think this is irrational. If you deny this and think it is rational to judge infants the same way we do 40 year olds, tell me why you think it is rational. Your opinion must be based on something logical. Or if it isn't, admit your opinion is not based on logic, but is instead based on something illogical. I've never said any of those things are irrational.

No Thinker, you are avoiding, I never said that there could not be a "logical" consideration, but that is not how we do ethics. But I'm not understanding your last point. Are you saying that basing laws on the subjective preferences that we would not want to live in a disordered society where murder, rape, etc... run rampant is not illogical? That those subjective preferences are rational even though they would not meet your logical criterion.

Yes. I've been argument my point logically follows from my premise.

No it does not tell us what necessarily follows what we necessarily should. I still need a conclusion which you have not provided even though I have asked you a zillion times! How can I know if you don't offer a conclusion?

You make no sense. We don't need to appeal to formal logic in order to do things that are logical. If that weren't the case we wouldn't have been able to do anything logical before formal logic was constructed - which is absurd. And there is no logic that is mine. My logic appeals to objective logic any rational person can recognize.

My point is that we do not need deductive reasoning to do ethics, subjective reasons are just as valid. As you seemed to agree above. It may be that these subjective reason line up with your criterion, and that is fine, but not necessary.

It is not the case that an ape is more sentient than a human child, so your whole scenario isn't really relevant.

Avoiding again! The adult ape certainly is more self-aware than the one year old child. For instance many adult primates will pass a repetitive mirror-test, a one year old child will not. So you know the adult ape is more aware than the baby - you just don't want to answer the question.

[Carrikature]

Well humans have a more worth to God, that is why we deserve more consideration.

That doesn't get us to an objective means for prioritizing or quantifying things, though. We could take out 'to God' from this sentence and be in the exact same place.

[seer]

That doesn't get us to an objective means for prioritizing or quantifying things, though. We could take out 'to God' from this sentence and be in the exact same place.

Well of course for a non-believer it would not make a difference. And something being "objective" in this situation is rather meaningless. So what if it is objective? What does that get us?

[The Thinker]

No Thinker, you are avoiding, I never said that there could not be a "logical" consideration, but that is not how we do ethics. But I'm not understanding your last point.

Yes you said all considerations are subjective. That means they are not logical since logic is not subjective.

Are you saying that basing laws on the subjective preferences that we would not want to live in a disordered society where murder, rape, etc... run rampant is not illogical? That those subjective preferences are rational even though they would not meet your logical criterion.

Yes - they are logical, and those laws are not all effected by my logical criterion. So you are again failing to understand that my logical criterion is just one aspect of my overall argument, and a person can agree with my logical criterion even if their ethical views differ in some areas.

No it does not tell us what necessarily follows what we necessarily should. I still need a conclusion which you have not provided even though I have asked you a zillion times! How can I know if you don't offer a conclusion?

There is no point in offering a conclusion if we're stuck on P3. My point does indeed follow from my premises. If being rational allows you legal culpability, it logically entails that the more you have of it the more legal culpability you should have. That's why we don't hold infants to the same standards as 40 year olds.

My point is that we do not need deductive reasoning to do ethics, subjective reasons are just as valid. As you seemed to agree above. It may be that these subjective reason line up with your criterion, and that is fine, but not necessary.

Even if you think ethics is entirely subjective, people will still need deductive logic to reason to their conclusions rationally.

Avoiding again! The adult ape certainly is more self-aware than the one year old child. For instance many adult primates will pass a repetitive mirror-test, a one year old child will not. So you know the adult ape is more aware than the baby - you just don't want to answer the question.

The kid was 3, not 1. And 3 year olds can pass the mirror test. But let's say it was a 1 year old child. A 1 year old is not as sentient as a fully frown ape. But that baby has potential, and his family is made of fully grown adults, and they will suffer more than the ape if he dies. That is an important factor since we are social primates. When all these are considered, killing the ape is justified.

[seer]

Yes you said all considerations are subjective. That means they are not logical since logic is not subjective.

No, again, I'm not saying that they could not eventually line up with logic, but that is not the basis of ethics which is subjective.

Yes - they are logical, and those laws are not all effected by my logical criterion. So you are again failing to understand that my logical criterion is just one aspect of my overall argument, and a person can agree with my logical criterion even if their ethical views differ in some areas.

Ok, so ethics based on subjective reasoning or reasons can be rational even though it does not line up with your deductive standard? Then what are we arguing about?

There is no point in offering a conclusion if we're stuck on P3. My point does indeed follow from my premises. If being rational allows you legal culpability, it logically entails that the more you have of it the more legal culpability you should have. That's why we don't hold infants to the same standards as 40 year olds.

Thinker we can not know if your reasoning holds until we get to a conclusion!

Even if you think ethics is entirely subjective, people will still need deductive logic to reason to their conclusions rationally.

Well of course we need reason to decide anything, but I'm glad you finally agree that subjective reasoning is valid.

The kid was 3, not 1. And 3 year olds can pass the mirror test. But let's say it was a 1 year old child. A 1 year old is not as sentient as a fully frown ape. But that baby has potential, and his family is made of fully grown adults, and they will suffer more than the ape if he dies. That is an important factor since we are social primates. When all these are considered, killing the ape is justified.

No, I reduced it to one year in post #167. So what if the one year old was an orphan? And the ape had the close and extended family?

[The Thinker]

No, again, I'm not saying that they could not eventually line up with logic, but that is not the basis of ethics which is subjective.

I'm not saying this is the basis of ethics either, it's a part of what the basis of ethics is. How many times do I have to explain this?

Ok, so ethics based on subjective reasoning or reasons can be rational even though it does not line up with your deductive standard? Then what are we arguing about?

We are debating my P3.

Thinker we can not know if your reasoning holds until we get to a conclusion!

You don't need the conclusion to debate the premises.

Well of course we need reason to decide anything, but I'm glad you finally agree that subjective reasoning is valid.

Subjective reasoning is valid for what?

No, I reduced it to one year in post #167. So what if the one year old was an orphan? And the ape had the close and extended family?

The ape here is irrelevant. Let's say it was a person about to kill the baby. Killing the person would always be a justifiable response by the shooter. Like I said, this whole scenario is irrelevant.

[seer]

I'm not saying this is the basis of ethics either, it's a part of what the basis of ethics is. How many times do I have to explain this?

Thinker I really don't know of any culture that started off basing their laws or ethics on deductive reasoning.

We are debating my P3.

OK, but can I get a straight answer. Do you agree that subjective preference can be a legitimate basis for ethics? Yes?

You don't need the conclusion to debate the premises.

Well after all this time it would be nice to know where it leads, certainly you can not make the case without a conclusion, only then can we know if the conclusions follow the premises. Perhaps you can pull it all together. Let's say I have some issue with P3, especially in how we can objectively quantify subjective experiences like suffering and pleasure - but that should not prevent you from at least offering a conclusion.

Subjective reasoning is valid for what?

For deciding ethics and law as I have been saying. Again, we have laws against murder, rape, theft, etc... because we subjectively do not want to live in such a disordered, dangerous society. These reasons are not grounded in deductive logic but in subjective desire - and they are valid - yes?

The ape here is irrelevant. Let's say it was a person about to kill the baby. Killing the person would always be a justifiable response by the shooter. Like I said, this whole scenario is irrelevant.

No, the ape example is not irrelevant because you are basing you theory on the degrees of self-awareness which is a meaningful consideration, but it can not be the main or driving consideration because if it was in the case I laid out logic would naturally lead to saving the ape over the child. You know that, and that is why you will not answer.

[The Thinker]

Thinker I really don't know of any culture that started off basing their laws or ethics on deductive reasoning.

You know it's possible to do something rational without realizing why it's rational?

OK, but can I get a straight answer. Do you agree that subjective preference can be a legitimate basis for ethics? Yes?

Only if it's just a part of an ethical framework, but not as the basis an entire ethical theory. I think I've been clear on this all along.

Well after all this time it would be nice to know where it leads, certainly you can not make the case without a conclusion, only then can we know if the conclusions follow the premises. Perhaps you can pull it all together. Let's say I have some issue with P3, especially in how we can objectively quantify subjective experiences like suffering and pleasure - but that should not prevent you from at least offering a conclusion.

Of course not, but I prefer to go step by step.

For deciding ethics and law as I have been saying. Again, we have laws against murder, rape, theft, etc... because we subjectively do not want to live in such a disordered, dangerous society. These reasons are not grounded in deductive logic but in subjective desire - and they are valid - yes?

Subjective reasoning plays a role in ethics of course. For example, if someone wants to be spanked, it is ok for someone to spank them. If they didn't want to be spanked, it is not ok to spank them. So subjective desire of course plays a role in the area of consent. But that doesn't mean all ethics is subjective. For example, is someone does not consent to sex, it would be objectively wrong to force sex on them - which is rape. And most of the time you cannot know whether a person consents before

No, the ape example is not irrelevant because you are basing you theory on the degrees of self-awareness which is a meaningful consideration, but it can not be the main or driving consideration because if it was in the case I laid out logic would naturally lead to saving the ape over the child. You know that, and that is why you will not answer.

No because the killing in the case is in self defense and it is always ok to kill anything - human, animal, anything - in self defense. So you are once again totally wrong.

[seer]

You know it's possible to do something rational without realizing why it's rational?

But I doubt that you could frame my subjective reasons for not wanting rape, murder, disorder etc... into a deductive argument. Certainly not your original logical theory. Yet I think we both agree that those subjective reasons are in fact valid.

Only if it's just a part of an ethical framework, but not as the basis an entire ethical theory. I think I've been clear on this all along.

This is is exactly how we have done ethics for centuries, going back ancient understandings of the golden rule. That is the framework, and it is subjective. But you do agree that subjective reasons for ethics, or some ethics, can be valid. We have made progress.

Of course not, but I prefer to go step by step.

OK, then on P3. How can you objectively quantify subjective experiences like suffering or pleasure?

For example, is someone does not consent to sex, it would be objectively wrong to force sex on them - which is rape. And most of the time you cannot know whether a person consents before

No that would be subjectively wrong, since the standard of consent itself is subjective.

No because the killing in the case is in self defense and it is always ok to kill anything - human, animal, anything - in self defense. So you are once again totally wrong.

But I was not speaking of self defense, I moved on, for a while now, to a new example. Again: You have an orphaned one year old child, with no family. And a more self-aware ape or chimp with a close extended family. You can only save one - both are falling off a cliff - you can only grab one, or both are near death from starvation and you only have enough food to save one (any scenario would work since this is merely a thought experiment) which one would your theory logically call for saving?

[The Thinker]

But I doubt that you could frame my subjective reasons for not wanting rape, murder, disorder etc... into a deductive argument. Certainly not your original logical theory. Yet I think we both agree that those subjective reasons are in fact valid.

Which is irrelevant.

OK, then on P3. How can you objectively quantify subjective experiences like suffering or pleasure?

You can scan the brain to see how much the pain centers of the brain light up. This is also one way we can know animals feel pain and to what degree they can do so.

No that would be subjectively wrong, since the standard of consent itself is subjective.

No the standard is objective, and this is shown in my first 3 premises.

But I was not speaking of self defense, I moved on, for a while now, to a new example. Again: You have an orphaned one year old child, with no family. And a more self-aware ape or chimp with a close extended family. You can only save one - both are falling off a cliff - you can only grab one, or both are near death from starvation and you only have enough food to save one (any scenario would work since this is merely a thought experiment) which one would your theory logically call for saving?

It depends. Who an I in the scenario? Just someone walking by? Do I have a relation with either of them? I'd be inclined to save the human, mainly because chimps can go crazy and kill me and I don't want to be killed by a chimp. I have to always look out for my own welfare first.