How May Human Sexuality Be Understood in Religion, Politics, and Philosophically, In The Twentieth First Century?

[Sy Borg]

The real question is how far one can insert one's nose into other people's business and get away with it.

[Ecurb]

The real question is how far one can insert one's nose into other people's business and get away with it.

'For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbors, and laugh at them in our turn?'" Mr. Bennett, Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen.

[Sy Borg]

'Ninety percent of all human wisdom is the ability to mind your own business.' Robert Heinlein

[Pattern-chaser]

Nor is there any "middle ground" between morally wrong or right. Choosing the lesser of two evils is always morally right. "Morally right" doesn't mean "morally ideal."

If there is such a thing as "the lesser of two evils", then there must be a spectrum of evilness (which presumably also includes goodness).

Yes, there is. But there is no spectrum in the rightness or wrongness of an act. The act which, given the options available, yields the least evil is the right one.

You obviously understood the point I was making. And yet you still try to revert to your former position.

The act which, given the options available, yields the least evil is the least-wrong one.

If there are two wrongs (or it could be more than two, of course), and one of them is known and accepted to be a greater wrong than the other, this does not make the lesser wrong 'right'. How could it?

Real-world judgements are not subject to this binary nit-picking. They aren't black and white. They're always, in a real-world situation, some shade of grey. There is no binary choice here; the real world is very rarely that simple.

Sorry, but the choice regarding an act is always binary --- you either do it or you don't. If choice Y among XYZ yields the least evil, you either do Y or you don't. If you do you've acted rightly. If you choose X or Z, or do nothing, you've acted wrongly.

Again, no, you haven't "acted rightly". You have selected the least-wrong option, which is the morally-preferable option. But it remains wrong. A wrong act cannot be magically transformed into a 'right' act just because it's the least-wrong.

And this stuff about binary choices: you choose some action, or you choose inaction. In all cases, you make a choice. And, once you've made it, it becomes the one and only choice that you made. But this is obvious, and has nothing to do with binary choices. There are many actions — one of them being inaction; no action — that could've been made; there is no 'binary' choice here. "You either do it or you don't" makes it sound binary, but the truth is that 'you' choose from the available actions, which are almost always more than two, especially if we include inaction as a valid choice (which it is).

[Pattern-chaser]

When all available choices will result in some evil, you only act wrongly if you fail to choose the act yielding the least evil.

If you choose a wrong action — the one that is least wrong, as you say — how does your choice turn it into a right action?

How can that be possible?

[Pattern-chaser]

'For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbors, and laugh at them in our turn?'" Mr. Bennett, Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen.

Jane Austen may have said it, but that doesn't make it right, or even accurate. If life is only schadenfreude...?

[Pattern-chaser]

The real question is how far one can insert one's nose into other people's business and get away with it.

Yes. This is real-life morality. Dirty and difficult, real and actual, morality. No precise, binary, choices, but dilemmas (not turtles) all the way down. This particular dilemma must result in a compromise, I suspect, between not interfering with others and not tolerating behaviours that are genuinely intolerable. This is worse than I make it sound, in practice, because the judgement as to what is "tolerable" is a moral one, not subject to easy evidence-based deductive reasoning.

Back specifically to the topic: if respecting someone else's sex/gender alignment and preferences harms no-one else, what possible reason could we have for not accepting them and their position?

[GE Morton]

Nor is there any "middle ground" between morally wrong or right. Choosing the lesser of two evils is always morally right. "Morally right" doesn't mean "morally ideal."

If there is such a thing as "the lesser of two evils", then there must be a spectrum of evilness (which presumably also includes goodness).

Yes, there is. But there is no spectrum in the rightness or wrongness of an act. The act which, given the options available, yields the least evil is the right one.

You obviously understood the point I was making. And yet you still try to revert to your former position.

The act which, given the options available, yields the least evil is the least-wrong one.

Confused. Is the italicized statement above supposed to be "my former position"? It isn't. I've never said that.

If there are two wrongs (or it could be more than two, of course), and one of them is known and accepted to be a greater wrong than the other, this does not make the lesser wrong 'right'. How could it?

You're again confusing "two wrongs" with "two evils." Right/wrong denote the moral character of an act. "Evil" denotes the effect of an act or event (an act or event that results in harms or suffering). There are greater and lesser evils, but no greater or lesser wrongs.

Sorry, but the choice regarding an act is always binary --- you either do it or you don't. If choice Y among XYZ yields the least evil, you either do Y or you don't. If you do you've acted rightly. If you choose X or Z, or do nothing, you've acted wrongly.

Again, no, you haven't "acted rightly". You have selected the least-wrong option, which is the morally-preferable option. But it remains wrong. A wrong act cannot be magically transformed into a 'right' act just because it's the least-wrong.

Again, there is no greater or lesser with respect to (morally) right or wrong. The morally right choice is the the agent ought to choose. When all options result in some evil, that will be the one yielding the LEAST evil.

Consider the following multiple-choice quiz:

1. 2+2 = 6

2. 2+2 = 4

3. 2+2 = 27

4. 2+2 = 9

Only #2 is the RIGHT answer. All others are WRONG. The student gets no points for choosing #1 because it is "less wrong" than than the other wrong answers.

And this stuff about binary choices: you choose some action, or you choose inaction. In all cases, you make a choice. And, once you've made it, it becomes the one and only choice that you made. But this is obvious, and has nothing to do with binary choices. There are many actions — one of them being inaction; no action — that could've been made; there is no 'binary' choice here. "You either do it or you don't" makes it sound binary, but the truth is that 'you' choose from the available actions, which are almost always more than two, especially if we include inaction as a valid choice (which it is).

There is a binary choice for EVERY ONE of the options --- you either choose it or you don't. All multiple choice scenarios resolve to a series of binary choices.

[GE Morton]

When all available choices will result in some evil, you only act wrongly if you fail to choose the act yielding the least evil.

If you choose a wrong action — the one that is least wrong, as you say — how does your choice turn it into a right action?

How can that be possible?

It's not. But that is not what I said ("as you say"). Again, you're equating "least evil" with "least wrong." Those two terms refer to two different things.

[GE Morton]

Back specifically to the topic: if respecting someone else's sex/gender alignment and preferences harms no-one else, what possible reason could we have for not accepting them and their position?

What do you mean by "accepting"? Befriending them? Tolerating them (taking no actions either cordial or hostile with respect to them)? Or adopting their spurious and eclectic definitions of common words?

[Pattern-chaser]

There are greater and lesser evils, but no greater or lesser wrongs.

Enough of this. There is a spectrum with right and wrong at its extremes, so some things are more or less wrong/right than others.

[Pattern-chaser]

Back specifically to the topic: if respecting someone else's sex/gender alignment and preferences harms no-one else, what possible reason could we have for not accepting them and their position?

What do you mean by "accepting"? Befriending them? Tolerating them (taking no actions either cordial or hostile with respect to them)? Or adopting their spurious and eclectic definitions of common words?

By "accepting", I mean (at the least) "taking no actions either cordial or hostile with respect to them", but preferably to "accept" them by extending to them the courtesy of addressing them as they prefer to be addressed. What harm is there in that? None, that I can see.

[GE Morton]

By "accepting", I mean (at the least) "taking no actions either cordial or hostile with respect to them", but preferably to "accept" them by extending to them the courtesy of addressing them as they prefer to be addressed. What harm is there in that? None, that I can see.

Should we address someone who is not, say, a doctor (has no medical training) as "Dr. Alfie," because he prefers to be so addressed? Or someone who believes he is Napoleon as "Mon Empereur" because he would so prefer? Should we not refer to someone who has committed a murder as a "murderer" if he would prefer no to be so identified?

Using terms someone else would prefer we use, when they are grammatically or factually incorrect or misleading, is not a "courtesy." It is an indulgence.

[Ecurb]

'For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbors, and laugh at them in our turn?'" Mr. Bennett, Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen.

Jane Austen may have said it, but that doesn't make it right, or even accurate. If life is only schadenfreude...?

First of all, Mr. Bennet said it (although Austen worte what Bennet said). Second, what's wrong with laughing at the absurdities of life? To assume that laughing at people means laughing at their misfortune or misery bespeaks a negative outlook.

Austen is perhaps the funniest of great authors. But she rarely seems mean-spirited. She just finds life enjoyable -- and her sense of humor is one reason why.

[Ecurb]

Should we address someone who is not, say, a doctor (has no medical training) as "Dr. Alfie," because he prefers to be so addressed? Or someone who believes he is Napoleon as "Mon Empereur" because he would so prefer? Should we not refer to someone who has committed a murder as a "murderer" if he would prefer no to be so identified?

Using terms someone else would prefer we use, when they are grammatically or factually incorrect or misleading, is not a "courtesy." It is an indulgence.

I think we should address the person who believes he is Napoleon as "mon empereur" only if we are French.