Philosophical Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage

[seer]

Which is irrelevant.

Well no it's not. It is the whole ball game.

You can scan the brain[/URL] 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.

Sure animals can experience pain, but what is their subjective experience of it? And such subjective experiences of pain and pleasure often vary widely even among humans. Even so, I wish you would get to your conclusion. Perhaps you don't actually have one?

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

No you haven't, sheesh Thinker:

P1: A universe devoid of life would have no moral component to it
P2: At some very basic and fundamental level, morality has to concern living things. Living things must exist, because life can respond physically and emotionally where it can either benefit or suffer at the result of actions that happen to it.
P3: If something can suffer, the more it can suffer is generally worse, and if something can feel pleasure, the more it can feel pleasure is generally better.

Where do you even mention consent?

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.

Oh the twists and turns! I give up trying to get a straight answer.

[The Thinker]

Well no it's not. It is the whole ball game.

No, it's irrelevant.

Sure animals can experience pain, but what is their subjective experience of it? And such subjective experiences of pain and pleasure often vary widely even among humans. Even so, I wish you would get to your conclusion. Perhaps you don't actually have one?

Of course I have one. I guess your point here is pain and pleasure is subjective? If someone is in pain, it is objective.

No you haven't, sheesh Thinker:

P1: A universe devoid of life would have no moral component to it
P2: At some very basic and fundamental level, morality has to concern living things. Living things must exist, because life can respond physically and emotionally where it can either benefit or suffer at the result of actions that happen to it.
P3: If something can suffer, the more it can suffer is generally worse, and if something can feel pleasure, the more it can feel pleasure is generally better.

Where do you even mention consent?

The objective standard is outlined in P1-P3. So far you have not refuted P3. You've just asserted that it is subjective and given no reason. But if you grant P1 and P2, P3 logically follows, just like if you grant that rationality is required to have legal culpability, it logically follows that the more rationality you have the more legal culpability you have, and vice versa. Hence, if morality depends on sentience (which you agree with), the more sentience you have the greater the moral concern, and vice versa. We are not passed this point, so you're either going to concede P3 or defend your view with logic.

Oh the twists and turns! I give up trying to get a straight answer.

There are definitely some scenarios where killing a human is preferred over killing an animal. You just used a very bad scenario where the animal was irrelevant.

[seer]

No, it's irrelevant.

No, I think we have established that subjective reasons for ethics, that don't rely on a deductive justification, can be valid.

Of course I have one. I guess your point here is pain and pleasure is subjective? If someone is in pain, it is objective.

So if I tell you my back is killing me that is objective?

The objective standard is outlined in P1-P3. So far you have not refuted P3. You've just asserted that it is subjective and given no reason. But if you grant P1 and P2, P3 logically follows, just like if you grant that rationality is required to have legal culpability, it logically follows that the more rationality you have the more legal culpability you have, and vice versa. Hence, if morality depends on sentience (which you agree with), the more sentience you have the greater the moral concern, and vice versa. We are not passed this point, so you're either going to concede P3 or defend your view with logic.

No, you again are asserting. It is merely an opinion that more self-awareness should cause more moral concern. I'm not saying that it is a bad opinion, and it is one that I, or even a culture, may share, but it an opinion nonetheless. There is nothing inherent in the idea of self-awareness that tells us what is moral or not. But on this last exchange you brought up the idea of consent as a defense and said it was part of your deductive argument - it was not.

[The Thinker]

No, I think we have established that subjective reasons for ethics, that don't rely on a deductive justification, can be valid.

Well I have never denied that some aspects of ethics is subjective.

So if I tell you my back is killing me that is objective?

If you're not lying, yes. And a brain scan can determine whether your pain is real.

No, you again are asserting. It is merely an opinion that more self-awareness should cause more moral concern. I'm not saying that it is a bad opinion, and it is one that I, or even a culture, may share, but it an opinion nonetheless.

No it's not an opinion, it's the logical entailment from the premises I outlined in P1 and P2. Whether or not people accept this, or practice it is irrelevant. People will always do and think irrational things.

There is nothing inherent in the idea of self-awareness that tells us what is moral or not. But on this last exchange you brought up the idea of consent as a defense and said it was part of your deductive argument - it was not.

I never claimed that self-awareness itself tells us what is moral or not in any given situation so this is a straw man. As far as consent:

P1: A universe devoid of life would have no moral component to it
P2: At some very basic and fundamental level, morality has to concern living things. Living things must exist, because life can respond physically and emotionally where it can either benefit or suffer at the result of actions that happen to it.
P3: If something can suffer, the more it can suffer is generally worse, and if something can feel pleasure, the more it can feel pleasure is generally better.
P4: Harming something without its consent in general causes suffering

[seer]

Well I have never denied that some aspects of ethics is subjective.

I just want to be clear for future reference. You agree that ethics can be valid even if they grounded in subjective reasoning?

If you're not lying, yes. And a brain scan can determine whether your pain is real.

Well if I was a Yoga master I don't think it would register even in my brain waves. But the point is yes, it is subjective. You would have to take my word for it.

No it's not an opinion, it's the logical entailment from the premises I outlined in P1 and P2. Whether or not people accept this, or practice it is irrelevant. People will always do and think irrational things.

You keep claiming this!

I never claimed that self-awareness itself tells us what is moral or not in any given situation so this is a straw man.

Then where in this picture does morality come in and why?

As far as consent:

P1: A universe devoid of life would have no moral component to it
P2: At some very basic and fundamental level, morality has to concern living things. Living things must exist, because life can respond physically and emotionally where it can either benefit or suffer at the result of actions that happen to it.
P3: If something can suffer, the more it can suffer is generally worse, and if something can feel pleasure, the more it can feel pleasure is generally better.
P4: Harming something without its consent in general causes suffering

What? Harming something with or without consent can cause suffering. What is your point?

[The Thinker]

I just want to be clear for future reference. You agree that ethics can be valid even if they grounded in subjective reasoning?

I have been crystal clear on this: some aspects of ethics are valid on subjective reasoning, but not all.

Well if I was a Yoga master I don't think it would register even in my brain waves. But the point is yes, it is subjective. You would have to take my word for it.

When yoga masters meditate they are making the pain go away, so they are not in pain.

You keep claiming this!

I keep proving this.

Then where in this picture does morality come in and why?

When sentience arises, as I've been saying, but that doesn't tell us what is moral or not in any given situation, it just tells you that morality comes into the picture.

What? Harming something with or without consent can cause suffering. What is your point?

My point is that there can be some harm that is good, like injecting a kid with a vaccine that causes minor pain without its consent that prevents a disease because the kid doesn't know any better.

[seer]

When sentience arises, as I've been saying, but that doesn't tell us what is moral or not in any given situation, it just tells you that morality comes into the picture.

No, all this demonstrates is that thinking morally is possible once you have rationality in the picture. But it doesn't, like you agreed, tell us what is right or wrong.

My point is that there can be some harm that is good, like injecting a kid with a vaccine that causes minor pain without its consent that prevents a disease because the kid doesn't know any better.

OK, but where do we go from here? And like I said, what if the harm of others is to ones self-interest? Why is that objectively wrong? Are we even close to a conclusion? I understand you are debating four people at once, so I'm trying to be patient, but...

[hansgeorg]

Are there any good philosophical arguments against same-sex marriage?

I was thinking that the purposes of marriage include the following: to provide companionship, to procreate, and to provide an environment for raising children. Same-sex marriages cannot fulfill all of those purposes so they should not be allowed. Someone could object by saying that this argument leads to the conclusion that infertile heterosexual couples should not be allowed to marry because they cannot fulfill all of those purposes. How would you respond this?

Have there been any social scientific studies done investigating whether same-sex couples can provide a good environment for raising children?

Do you think that the only good arguments against same-sex marriage are biblical arguments?

http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot....-morality.html

Procreation comes before companionship.

And adopting children is for those who have tried begetting and failed or for those who have not had the opportunity to marry.

If same sex couples are allowed to adopt too, that raises the adoption demand and leads to more parents who really are such being declared unfit.

[hansgeorg]

First, the spiritual Laws of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i Faith consider same sex intercourse against the Law of God. These are Spiritual Laws of these religions. In the modern diverse world of beliefs and life-styles, and the separation of religion and state make it difficult to justify religious Spiritual Laws that are not values and beliefs held by different diverse groups in a modern society.

Lots of other religions consider it at least shameful, and none (except certain late perversions of Anglicanism / Lutheranism / Western Atheism / perhaps New Age) consider it a sound basis for marriage.

[hansgeorg]

Something I often wonder. Marriage as it's practiced today is more of a legal contract than a matter of companionship or procreation.

OK ...?

That we do allow infertile heterosexual couples to marry- or heterosexual couples that may only want the legal, contractual rights to marry- undercuts that argument.

Not really. For one thing, marriage is irrevocable. And that means when we know those two are unfertile, they are already married. The other point asks the question how much one should LOOK into private lives of people one marries, as a state or a magistrate of the Church.

We also don't terminate marriage on the grounds that someone is an unfit parent or partner, if it isn't voluntary. If marriage was still solely a religious or familial institution, I think you'd be able to make those points. Does the state have an interest in insuring only a heterosexual couple contracts for companionship or shared responsibility for raising children?

There should be no, or nearly no declarations that someone is unfit to be a parent.

If he has sacrificed one of his children to Moloch or to some sex abuse ritual of wiccan type, if it can be proven, or if he has killed a child. Or visibly been doing a job of killing it, except for being stopped.

Even when Pope Pius IX took away the Mortara boy from his parents, he didn't declare them unfit, he only said the rights of baptism come before the rights of parents.

Had they changed their mind, they would have gotten him back, from his side.

[shunyadragon]

Lots of other religions consider it at least shameful, and none (except certain late perversions of Anglicanism / Lutheranism / Western Atheism / perhaps New Age) consider it a sound basis for marriage.

Yes but not all. I do not believe Western Atheism, new New Age(Whatever this means?) movements do not necessarily it necessarily shameful. There are many cultures of the world and modern European societies that do not consider the alternate lifestyles shameful.

[The Thinker]

No, all this demonstrates is that thinking morally is possible once you have rationality in the picture. But it doesn't, like you agreed, tell us what is right or wrong.

And I agreed that self-awareness doesn't tell us what is moral in any given situation, just that self-awareness tells us morality comes into the picture.

OK, but where do we go from here? And like I said, what if the harm of others is to ones self-interest? Why is that objectively wrong? Are we even close to a conclusion? I understand you are debating four people at once, so I'm trying to be patient, but...

It is objectively wrong because unnecessarily harming other for your self-interest will lead to maximum suffering, and as per my argument, doing that is bad:

P1: A universe devoid of life would have no moral component to it.
P2: At some very basic and fundamental level, morality has to concern living things. Living things must exist, because life can respond physically and emotionally where it can either benefit or suffer at the result of actions that happen to it.
P3: If something can suffer, the more it can suffer is generally worse, and if something can feel pleasure, the more it can feel pleasure is generally better.
P4: Harming something without its consent in general causes suffering.

So let me add to my deductive argument for why harming creatures that can suffer is morally wrong.

C: Because morality depends on sentience (P2) where unnecessary harm is bad and pleasure is good and where the more pleasure is good and the more harm is bad (P3) it logically entails that harming creatures that can suffer is morally wrong.

In short, to unnecessarily harm a creature causes it suffering, and the ability to suffer (sentience) is why we have morality at all, and since unnecessary suffering is bad, and pleasure is good, the two are inextricably tied to what's morally bad and morally good. Take this away and you have no rational basis for ethics.

[seer]

And I agreed that self-awareness doesn't tell us what is moral in any given situation, just that self-awareness tells us morality comes into the picture.



It is objectively wrong because unnecessarily harming other for your self-interest will lead to maximum suffering, and as per my argument, doing that is bad:

P1: A universe devoid of life would have no moral component to it.
P2: At some very basic and fundamental level, morality has to concern living things. Living things must exist, because life can respond physically and emotionally where it can either benefit or suffer at the result of actions that happen to it.
P3: If something can suffer, the more it can suffer is generally worse, and if something can feel pleasure, the more it can feel pleasure is generally better.
P4: Harming something without its consent in general causes suffering.

So let me add to my deductive argument for why harming creatures that can suffer is morally wrong.

C: Because morality depends on sentience (P2) where unnecessary harm is bad and pleasure is good and where the more pleasure is good and the more harm is bad (P3) it logically entails that harming creatures that can suffer is morally wrong.

In short, to unnecessarily harm a creature causes it suffering, and the ability to suffer (sentience) is why we have morality at all, and since unnecessary suffering is bad, and pleasure is good, the two are inextricably tied to what's morally bad and morally good. Take this away and you have no rational basis for ethics.

I'm really unclear about what your conclusion is. I mean in "C" you just repeated your premises - and I'm not sure what you mean about a rational basis since you agreed that subjective reasons are valid. But still I don't get why the suffering of others is wrong if it serves ones self interest or pleasure. Besides your say so.

[hansgeorg]

Yes but not all. I do not believe Western Atheism, new New Age(Whatever this means?) movements do not necessarily it necessarily shameful. There are many cultures of the world and modern European societies that do not consider the alternate lifestyles shameful.

I did not say "new New Age", I said "perhaps New Age", being less familiar with New Age than with Western Atheism. These are the movements where late perversions (along with those of Anglicanism and Lutheranism) have introduced a "respect" for lesbigay "life style choices".

Alternative lifestyles in traditional cultures are rarely about homosexuality, and if so usually with a shame attached to it.

Monks per se are far more common (both Christian and Buddhist, with some parallels in Hinduism) and are usually not too tolerant of homosexuality within communities, while if Buddhism might be, that is at least not in the form of gay marriage.

So, gay marriage goes against near consensus of all human cultures, not just against Divine Revelation.

[Carrikature]

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?

It's your requirement.