The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Philosophy
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Philosophy Religions, schools of thought, matters of importance and navel-gazing

View Poll Results: Is being gay morally wrong?
Yes 6 11.76%
No 42 82.35%
Depends 0 0%
Other 3 5.88%
Voters: 51. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-17-2007, 08:27 PM   #1
Kerotan
Half-Awesome
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJ View Post
there are no morals
So what would I do if I raped your (metaphorical) sister, slept with your (metaphorical) mother and killed you (metaphorical) father?

how would you feel?

do you feel nothing?

should I got to prison?
__________________
Is it possible to go off topic in a Philosophy forum?

Answers on a postcard please.

Last edited by Kerotan; 12-17-2007 at 08:29 PM. Reason: Added in the brackets to draw the attention away from the idea that i i am serial rapist/murderer
Kerotan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2007, 10:32 PM   #2
LJ
i am myself
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: via blackberry, maybe
Posts: 750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerotan View Post
So what would I do if I raped your (metaphorical) sister, slept with your (metaphorical) mother and killed you (metaphorical) father?

how would you feel?

do you feel nothing?

should I got to prison?
yes yes...but not because of morals. that would be for violating their(metaphorical) rights.

morals are internal and subjective. i don't have the right to impose my morals on you. if you want to suck a dick, that's your business. the only morals that apply in a gay relationships are those of the cocksuckers.
__________________
Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show ...
-C.Dickens
LJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2007, 12:47 PM   #3
smoothmoniker
to live and die in LA
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJ View Post
yes yes...but not because of morals. that would be for violating their(metaphorical) rights.
That's a curious distinction, LJ. I wonder how you might go about defending the realness of "rights" without some appeal to inherent value and moral prohibition.

In other words, your sister's right to self-determination (the right to not have sex forced on her) has to be, in some way, connected to her inherent value as a human being. That statement of value then carries with it certain prohibitive statements, statements that declare the boundary actions which violate the right.

Well, if you have statements of inherent value and statements of prohibited acts based on that value, you have morality.

If you see some other way to construct "rights", and to give some justification for their "rightness" without appealing to moral language, I'd love to hear it.
__________________
to live and die in LA
smoothmoniker is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:14 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.