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

[Ecurb]

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't describing bullying.

Alfie fights to defend freedom of speech, 'freedom of hate-speech' in particular.
Bruno indulges in hate speech.
Carl harms Dave, under the influence of Bruno's incitement.

Carl is mostly responsible for Dave's injuries, of course. Bruno also bears some responsibility. But so, IMO, does Alfie.

Agreed. Nice illustration.

We all know what "inciting" means, without all the double-talk rationalisations. One publicly encourages hatred against traditionally marginalised groups that have long experienced violence and marginalisation, and this increases the chances of violence because they are easy marks with weak defences and few defenders.

How has Alfie "incited" anything by supporting Bruno's right to freedom of speech? By this logic, we are all guilty of knife murders because we have failed to pass laws banning the purchase of sharp knives. The people who believe that knives should be available at dinner time may think that whatever harm is caused by mad slashers does not compel them to prohibit citizens from cutting their dinners into bite-sized bits. The proponents of free speech may think the VALUE of such freedom outweighs the value of legally prohibiting hate speech. In fact, that is what I think.

If we eliminate freedom altogether we could stop all sorts of violence. Aren't authoritarian states known to lower crime rates?

[Sy Borg]

The proponents of free speech may think the VALUE of such freedom outweighs the value of legally prohibiting hate speech. In fact, that is what I think.

I think differently. I think some modest limits - which, after all, only impact government organisations and affiliates - are appropriate.

Life, and the social groups that many life forms spontaneously assemble, exist on the boundary of chaos. Too much randomness, and there's a failure of order, while too much order leads to stagnation.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think we are approaching hair-splitting if we don't stop soon. To cause deliberate harm to others is wrong. I think we can agree on that. To incite or provoke others to do harm is wrong too, I think, although perhaps we might see that as a secondary wrong? Individual cases, examples or real-life ones, are each different and unique, and each should be judged on its own merits, and in its own context. (IMO) Perhaps we might even agree on that too?

We deliberately harm people all the time. We put them in prisons if they do stuff we don't like. We make them pay taxes they don't want to pay. We fight wars against the Nazis where we kill lots of people. In general (I don't want to speak for you) "we" do not think these things are morally "wrong".

I think doing harm and acting morally are different things. Imprisonment is a reaction; an expected response (if you get caught). But I suppose it's still 'harm'. Paying taxes is just paying what you owe, and is not what many would understand as 'harm'.

But yes, sometimes we harm others for reasons we consider to be morally acceptable. My own view is that harming others is morally wrong, always and without exception, but that there are sometimes circumstances where doing what is morally wrong is morally acceptable, even morally necessary (even though that sounds contradictory).

[GE Morton]

How has Alfie "incited" anything by supporting Bruno's right to freedom of speech? By this logic, we are all guilty of knife murders because we have failed to pass laws banning the purchase of sharp knives. The people who believe that knives should be available at dinner time may think that whatever harm is caused by mad slashers does not compel them to prohibit citizens from cutting their dinners into bite-sized bits. The proponents of free speech may think the VALUE of such freedom outweighs the value of legally prohibiting hate speech. In fact, that is what I think.

Similar arguments apply to gun-banning proposals, 99% of which are never used in crimes.

If we eliminate freedom altogether we could stop all sorts of violence. Aren't authoritarian states known to lower crime rates?

Excellent points.

[GE Morton]

So I agree, given your definition of "public morality", although I think that you are using common words ("public" and "morality") in a manner that supports your political philosophy. The good swimmer who refuses to jump into the cold water to save a child has, in my opinion, behaved in a publicly immoral manner, but I'm not sure he should be punished by the law. Same with the neo-Nazi hate speaker.

A sound public morality is the basis for law, but not necessarily co-extensive with it. That morality would prescribe a conditional duty to aid, which would cover your drowning child, but that duty could not be enforced by law.

[GE Morton]

But yes, sometimes we harm others for reasons we consider to be morally acceptable. My own view is that harming others is morally wrong, always and without exception, but that there are sometimes circumstances where doing what is morally wrong is morally acceptable, even morally necessary (even though that sounds contradictory).

It is contradictory. Some harms are justifiable, and "justifiable" means not morally wrong.

[Pattern-chaser]

But yes, sometimes we harm others for reasons we consider to be morally acceptable. My own view is that harming others is morally wrong, always and without exception, but that there are sometimes circumstances where doing what is morally wrong is morally acceptable, even morally necessary (even though that sounds contradictory).

It is contradictory. Some harms are justifiable, and "justifiable" means not morally wrong.

I think you're missing the core proverb/saying: "the lesser of two evils". Or maybe more than two. In the real world, we often need to balance one good thing against another, or one bad thing against another, or one neutral thing against... Any combination you can think of.

Justifiable does not mean "not morally wrong", it means, er, justifiable: capable of justification.

[GE Morton]

But yes, sometimes we harm others for reasons we consider to be morally acceptable. My own view is that harming others is morally wrong, always and without exception, but that there are sometimes circumstances where doing what is morally wrong is morally acceptable, even morally necessary (even though that sounds contradictory).

It is contradictory. Some harms are justifiable, and "justifiable" means not morally wrong.

I think you're missing the core proverb/saying: "the lesser of two evils". Or maybe more than two. In the real world, we often need to balance one good thing against another, or one bad thing against another, or one neutral thing against... Any combination you can think of.

Justifiable does not mean "not morally wrong", it means, er, justifiable: capable of justification.

That is obviously circular.

"Justifiable" derives from "just," and "justice."

"Just (adjective):

"1. Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions: a just ruler.
"2. Consistent with what is morally right; righteous: a just cause."

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=just

"Justice (noun):

"1. The quality of being just; fairness: In the interest of justice, we should treat everyone the same.
"2.a. The principle of moral rightness; decency.
b. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness: argued for the justice of his cause."

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=justice

[Consul]

It is contradictory. Some harms are justifiable, and "justifiable" means not morally wrong.

I think you're missing the core proverb/saying: "the lesser of two evils". Or maybe more than two. In the real world, we often need to balance one good thing against another, or one bad thing against another, or one neutral thing against... Any combination you can think of.
Justifiable does not mean "not morally wrong", it means, er, justifiable: capable of justification.

In what sense can a morally justifiable action be morally wrong? Doesn't moral justifiability entail moral permissibility? For example, when I hurt an attacker in self-defense, I am morally justified in doing so; and if I am morally justified in doing so, then my doing so is not morally wrong.

[Consul]

In what sense can a morally justifiable action be morally wrong? Doesn't moral justifiability entail moral permissibility? For example, when I hurt an attacker in self-defense, I am morally justified in doing so; and if I am morally justified in doing so, then my doing so is not morally wrong.

Doesn't the moral justification of an action consist in giving reasons why it is not morally wrong, or why it is not impermissible?

[Pattern-chaser]

But yes, sometimes we harm others for reasons we consider to be morally acceptable. My own view is that harming others is morally wrong, always and without exception, but that there are sometimes circumstances where doing what is morally wrong is morally acceptable, even morally necessary (even though that sounds contradictory).

It is contradictory. Some harms are justifiable, and "justifiable" means not morally wrong.

I think you're missing the core proverb/saying: "the lesser of two evils". Or maybe more than two. In the real world, we often need to balance one good thing against another, or one bad thing against another, or one neutral thing against... Any combination you can think of.

Justifiable does not mean "not morally wrong", it means, er, justifiable: capable of justification.

That is obviously circular.

Yes, of course it is, because I hadn't done the web-searching for confirmation. Now I have submitted myself to that tedium:

Justify

American Heritage Dictionary — To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid.
Cambridge dictionary — to give or to be a good reason for.
Dictionary.com — to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right; to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded.

So justification is broader than just () justice, according to these definitions. It also includes validation and confirmation. And so "justifiable" does not mean "not morally wrong". It refers to being right in a moral sense, or in a logical and reasonable sense. And let's not forget the distinction between "not-wrong" and "right". "Not-wrong" also includes the middle ground between right and wrong.

[Pattern-chaser]

In what sense can a morally justifiable action be morally wrong? Doesn't moral justifiability entail moral permissibility? For example, when I hurt an attacker in self-defense, I am morally justified in doing so; and if I am morally justified in doing so, then my doing so is not morally wrong.

In a given situation, it may be that the course of action that is least wrong is the best choice available, morally speaking. The real world is rarely as simple as black-and-white 'rules' indicate. So, for example, it is wrong to kill in self-defence, but any other course of action would (usually, in real life) be more wrong. The lesser of two evils, as I said.

Killing in self-defence is morally justifiable, but it remains morally wrong.

[Pattern-chaser]

Doesn't the moral justification of an action consist in giving reasons why it is not morally wrong, or why it is not impermissible?

No, it consists in giving reasons why it might be morally right, or why it might be permissible. [N.B. My inversion removes the middle ground (between right and wrong) from your statement.] And one reason it might be permissible is that it is wrong, but all other available options are greater wrongs.

[Consul]

In a given situation, it may be that the course of action that is least wrong is the best choice available, morally speaking. The real world is rarely as simple as black-and-white 'rules' indicate. So, for example, it is wrong to kill in self-defence, but any other course of action would (usually, in real life) be more wrong. The lesser of two evils, as I said.

Killing in self-defence is morally justifiable, but it remains morally wrong.

So you think there are different degrees of moral wrongness (or rightness). Assuming you are right, the problem still is that any action with a low degree of moral wrongness is morally wrong all the same; so you ought not to do it, which means that you ought not to hurt an attacker in self-defense. But I don't think it is obligatory for you not to do so, because it is permissible for you to do so. You ought not to exert more violence than necessary in order to prevent the attacker from hurting or even killing you; but in case the attacker does get hurt or even killed, I am not morally responsible for it as long as I act in justified self-defense.

[Consul]

So you think there are different degrees of moral wrongness (or rightness).…

Even if there are, the doing of something which is "half-wrong" is still binary in the sense that you cannot "half-do" anything: You either do it or you don't, because there is no third possibility.