Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 12:59 am
No. I make no judgement of whether it is "good" for a man to marry another man. I simply leave the choice to him and his prospective partner. It may be the worst mistake of their lives. For some, it probably is (the same, of course, can be said about some heterosexual marriages).
The judgment is that it is good for a gay couple to have the opportunity to marry (objective benefit), in the same way that it is good for a heterosexual couple to have the opportunity to marry (empathy).
You seem to have ignored the parenthetical remark ("the same, of course, can be said about some heterosexual marriages"). The comment applies generally, not simply to gay marriage. For many people, getting married (regardless of whether it is same-sex or opposite-sex) is a terrible mistake. So, having an opportunity to marry is sometimes a bad thing, because someone marries when they should not, when doing so makes them terribly unhappy. Of course, that is not what they are expecting to happen when they marry, but their expectation is not a guarantee of anything.
So (and this is the main point), the opportunity to marry is not necessarily a good thing, and may turn out to be a horrible thing.
Do you think it is good for you to have the opportunity to shoot yourself in the foot? For some, they would be happier if they had done that rather than getting married.
I will give a little digression, primarily for others (if anyone else is reading this, though I expect many will pass over our exchange as a waste of time), it is for others, not you, because it might distract you from the main point, and I do not want to distract you from the main point. You can ignore this part for responses, as it is irrelevant to the main point. The U.S. government has statistics on marriage and divorce, and it turns out certain things correlate with the divorce rate, some of which should not be surprising. One of them is the age of the people getting married. For reasons that are not altogether clear, in this government document that I am about to quote, they just used the age of the woman at the time of first marriage, not the age of the man. (And, just in case you might be confused by the expression, "first marriage," that does
NOT imply that there will be a second marriage, nor does it imply that there will not be a second marriage.) Here is a bit from the text:
Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States wrote:Age at marriage is associated with the risk of marital disruption. Table 21 shows that after 10 years of marriage, 48 percent of first marriages of brides under age 18 have disrupted, compared with only 24 percent of those to brides at least age 25 at marriage (table 21). Women in the youngest age category are twice as likely to experience marital disruption within 10 years as women in the oldest age category.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf
If one looks at the Table 21 referred to in that text, one finds that 59% of those who marry before 18 get have a "disrupted" marriage within 15 years of marriage. We can see from this that we probably should prohibit such marriages (which, by the way, I do think we ought to prohibit children from marrying), though that is not the case in the U.S.; people can, if one has parents stupid enough to approve of it (or gets a judge to approve of it), marry before one is 18, depending on the state of residence, with the exact minimum age varying by state.
It is worth noting that marriage before 18 must happen with great frequency, or they would not have enough statistical data to tell us about this, as there are some things in the report that they mention that they lack sufficient data to come to any conclusions about the particular thing that is of interest to those who wrote the report.
I might also note the fact that it is nothing short of idiotic to say that someone is old enough to decide to supposedly commit to someone for life in marriage, but not old enough to decide whether one will have a glass of wine with dinner; these two should be reversed in order of when one may legally decide to do them. But enough of this digression.
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 12:59 am
It may or may not harm them. If a man makes a bad choice when he is given the option, it may well have been better for him not to have been able to make that choice.
But if the gay couple doesn't have the same opportunity to marry, they suffer the loss of the objective legal benefits we've discussed. They also suffer the continued social disrespect for their relationship. But if their relationship is recognized by law, they gain that social respect over time. For example, the Pope just recently endorsed civil unions for gay couples.
You mean, the gay man should have the same opportunity to make a mistake as the straight man.
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 25th, 2020, 11:40 pm
Well, there are many objective benefits granted to married couples. In the absence of a living will, the spouse can make end-of-life decisions when their partner is incapacitated and unable to speak for themselves. Relatives are also given preference in hospital visitation. And if a person dies without a will, the spouse becomes the default heir. Most health insurance policies automatically cover the spouse. So, there are many legal, social, and economic benefits given to spouses that were previously denied to gay and lesbian couples.
That's what objective benefits mean. And these were argued as the reasons why gay couples were harmed by being unable to marry.
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 12:59 am
There are those legal implications. But whether those are good or bad will be quite variable, don't you think? Suppose, for example, that you marry someone, trusting that they will honor your "end of life" wishes and you end up in a hospital, unable to express your wishes. Suppose your spouse does not honor your wishes. Did you benefit from this arrangement?
But no one is suggesting that we impose marriage upon anyone who does not wish to be married. The issue was whether they shall have the opportunity to marry.
You respond as if you did not read what I wrote at all. The legal aspects of a marriage may harm one. The idea that it is always good is ridiculous.
Do you believe that all marriages are happy? That no one ever makes a mistake when they decide to get married? Well, if it is always a good, like you are pretending it is, then it would never be a mistake to get married. But that is absurd.
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 25th, 2020, 11:40 pm
Empathy is what leads us to seek to improve the welfare of others. The welfare of gay couples is measured in what benefits are missing and what harms they are suffering. Empathy motivates us to make the moral argument. But the moral argument is made in terms of benefits and harms.
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 12:59 am
"Benefits" and "harms" may be simply subjective evaluations of situations. Indeed, with this specific example, you have given a great case for it being subjective. I have no desire to have any kind of sexual relationship with another man. To me, that would be a "harm" rather than a "benefit", though a gay man feels differently, and I respect the fact that he feels differently. I have no wish to stop gay men from engaging in consensual sex with each other.
And giving the gay couple the opportunity to marry does not impose upon you any requirement that you marry a man.
Again, you are responding as if you did not read what I wrote at all. I never suggested that anyone was forced to marry anyone. The point is, what constitutes a "harm" and what constitutes a "benefit" will be judged differently be different people. Your claim that it is all objective is just silly.
It is no benefit to me to be able to marry a man, because I have no desire to do so. You see that, right? But, for a gay man who wants to marry a man, it is a benefit to him. You see that, right? This means that what is a benefit and what isn't a benefit is dependent upon the individual, and, in this case, upon individual preference. This is the essence of subjectivity. The idea that whether something is a benefit or not is objective is just silly. This is why people reject your claims, because they are obviously silly.
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 25th, 2020, 8:24 pm
Furthermore, it is a benefit to allow people freedom to do what they want so long as it does not harm others, such that you conclude that "there is no good reason to forbid gay marriage, and therefore it should be allowed."
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 12:59 am
Whether it turns out to be a good thing or a bad thing is variable. Someone may regret a sexual encounter (regardless of whether it is heterosexual or homosexual). One may hope that people will think about their actions, will "look before they leap", though one knows that not everyone is so careful in their choices. So whether the freedom to choose something turns out to be good or bad is variable and uncertain.
I think that the freedom to choose is an objective benefit, whether the choice itself is objectively good or objectively bad. We do limit the freedom to marry to couples who are, at least in theory, old enough to take responsibility for their choices.
Unfortunately, we don't. See above (I see now that my digression was prescient).
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 25th, 2020, 11:40 pm
My suggestion is that you are seeking a solution that provides the best good and least harm for everyone.
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 12:59 am
The trouble with that expression is that it does not have any clear meaning. I am generally in favor of giving people choices in how they will live their lives, but stupid people will tend to make stupid choices. (Of course, I favor some restrictions, like having murder illegal and many things that tend to be laws pretty much everywhere.) It might turn out better for them if someone restricted their choices, though I do not generally favor that. Shouldn't you now say that I don't favor "the best good and least harm for everyone", since I favor letting people make some stupid choices?
Actually, I would say that you believe that the ability to make stupid choices is an objective benefit for everyone old enough to do so.
No. It is that I want to be able to make choices in certain circumstances, and so I want society to allow such things. Many people, though, are stupid and they will do stupid things. But I don't want their stupidity to stop me from doing what I want. And, of course, if I make a stupid mistake because of this, that is on me, both for making the choice, and for advocating for having the choice.
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am
What's that old saying, "I'd rather drink poison than have someone else always telling me what to drink". Freedom to choose for ourselves is an objective benefit.
No, it is a subjective benefit. I want it for myself. That is purely subjective, and it does not mean that I am right to want it for myself. If I have misjudged the matter, then I am one of the stupid people who would be better off if I were not given the opportunity to choose to screw up my life. (However, in this example of marriage, judging from how long my marriage has lasted so far, and judging from how I feel about my wife, and how she appears to feel about me, either I made a wise decision or, through dumb luck, I got lucky.)
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am
As you point out, there are limits placed upon that freedom by laws necessary to prevent murder and many other things that are objectively harmful to other people.
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 25th, 2020, 11:40 pm
Then we should give Hume his due for stressing the spiritual side of morality, that is, how one feels about things.
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 12:59 am
I do not think Hume would like that being called "the spiritual side of morality." I know I don't. It is simply the basis of morality, the essential part without which there would be no morality. I do not see why you would call emotions "spiritual", nor am I entirely certain what you mean to convey with that expression in this context.
I'm using "spirit" in the sense of "team spirit", "high spirited", "lifting someone's spirits". For example, we can do what is morally right in a spirit of love and joy, or we can do what is right in a spirit of duty and resentment. To me, the "holy spirit" is feeling good about doing good and being good.
Your use of the phrase "holy spirit" is likely to cause miscommunication with others. If you desire to communicate with others, I suggest conforming to standard usage instead of what you are doing.
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 25th, 2020, 11:40 pm
But, as Hume himself points about, those emotions may be present or absent in any given person. So, again, they are not reliable guides to moral judgment.
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 12:59 am
Right, the bare emotions are not reliable. This is why one should think about things, think about why one feels as one does. It may be that one feels one way about something due to a false belief about it, and consequently one will likely act in a manner that one would disapprove of if one did not have that false belief.
This leads us to the idea that we should be very careful about what we believe. Which means, we should only believe things in proportion to the evidence we have in favor of them. Many people don't like doing that, because doubt often makes people uncomfortable, and so they are motivated to come to some conclusion, even though they lack proper evidence for a conclusion. This leads to all sorts of problems. The world is, indeed, a mess. It would be better for all concerned if everyone believed things in proportion to the evidence and did not believe anything for which they lacked proper evidence. But this is getting us a bit away from the main topic at hand, the foundations of ethics. This bit is more a practical consideration.
Right, and I would add that the best cure for a false belief is objective evidence of the contrary. For example, when schools were integrated, white children were given the evidence of the true nature of black people, as simply people like them who happened to be black. And that objective evidence eroded many false beliefs over time.
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 25th, 2020, 11:40 pm
They are only the motivations to exercise moral judgment in the first place.
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 12:59 am
They are "only" essential for ethical judgements to occur at all.
I'm not sure I would go that far. Sometimes "moral" judgments are imposed upon others to satisfy malicious rather than benevolent feelings.
Without feelings, you would not make moral judgements. You would not care about someone cheating others if you had no feelings, you would not care about someone murdering others if you had no feelings, etc.
As for people pretending to make moral judgements for other purposes, that is something that is obviously possible, though I do not wish to comment further on that at this time.
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 25th, 2020, 11:40 pm
But the judgment as to what is "pernicious" or "villainous" or "base" relies upon objective information as to what is good for us and what is bad for us.
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 12:59 am
The judgement of something as being pernicious or villainous or base is a feeling. Of course, one has feelings about matters of fact, but without the feelings, there is no moral judgement. The wrongness of things is a feeling about them. That is, one does not see wrong in matters of fact; one feels the wrongness when considering the matters of fact.
Hume put it thusly:
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_629
When making moral judgements, one needs to know all of the relevant facts first, and then the moral judgement is made. That moral judgement is not a fact outside in the world; it is how one feels about those facts.
I think both may be the case. A moral judgment can be objective and also require a component of feeling. In David Eagleman's PBS series on "The Brain", there was a woman whose emotional areas were damaged. This made it difficult for her to go grocery shopping, because she could no longer feel when she had made a good choice.
I appreciate Hume's reference to objective evidence being necessary to correctly understand the circumstances before passing judgment. He sums up the case when he says, "While we are ignorant whether a man were aggressor or not, how can we determine whether the person who killed him be criminal or innocent?" Our feelings about killing the guy who was about to shoot someone would change radically if we learned that the person he was about to shoot was someone else who was just about to shoot someone.
To me, this again confirms how malleable our feelings are. They can change on a dime when presented with a new objective fact.
What it shows is that all of the relevant facts must be known in advance before one can properly make a moral judgement. And that moral judgement, then, cannot be a fact about the world, because those facts are all known prior to the judgement, or the judgement is not trustworthy. The only thing added at that point is how one feels about those facts. That is how we can know that it is feelings that are moral judgements and not some fact out in the world external to us.
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 25th, 2020, 11:40 pm
Religions are experts in feelings. They gather people together to sing, and pray, and hear sermons that expound upon the beliefs of their sect. They help people to feel good and thus reinforce each other's beliefs.
But scientific objectivity is the correct answer to blind faith.
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 12:59 am
I am not sure what your point is here. Religion often advertises itself as a way to make people feel better, but they often do the opposite. With traditional Christianity, not only is there the doctrine of eternal torment in hellfire for those who make an unacceptable mistake, which leads to quite a lot of fear and making people feel worse, there is also a lot of guilt that is foisted on many believers, guilt over things that are trivial, like whether someone feels lust toward someone's spouse, but does not act on it, and never seriously considers acting on it. There are many other things of a like nature, that make people feel worse rather than better. But religions do tend to provide a kind of social cohesion, though often this is at the expense of viewing outsiders as the "other", as less fully deserving of one's consideration or empathy. So they make a subset of people cohere, while splintering the whole of humanity.
The correct response to blind faith (belief in the absence of evidence) is to simply reject it. One should believe things in proportion to the evidence. So in the absence of all evidence, one should have no belief at all.
I suspect that "having no belief at all" may be physically impossible.
Nonsense. I have no belief at all about what you had for breakfast this morning, nor whether you had breakfast or not. I also don't much care what you did or did not do for breakfast, but even if I did, I have no evidence regarding your breakfast, and therefore I don't believe anything about it.
That is the approach one should always take when one has no evidence, regardless of whether one wishes one had evidence or not.
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am
The brain draws inferences to make sense of what it sees. There is probably never a case where we experience "the absence of all evidence". But before making a judgment, we should try to gather all the essential information relevant to that decision.
I'm happy to see Hume advocating for objective evidence rather than supposing that everything is merely subjective. Our feelings will be incorrect if the information we have does not reflect the objective facts of the circumstances.
For example, Breonna Taylor died because the police had false beliefs.
Well, one can reason about morality, and if one does that accurately, one will notice that the essential feature of it is that it is the result of feeling. It is how one feels about the facts of the world. But not just any feelings; it pertains to feelings of empathy or humanity or benevolence or whatever one wants to call such feelings, for reasons quoted in the opening post.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume