Richardthughes
Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
KF answers a "Yes/No" question:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-388339
| Quote | 5
WilliamRoache
07/05/2011
11:16 am
Kairosfocus,
I’ve been reading at your website and your threads here and I have a question.
According to this “objective morality” that you know exists, are homosexuals immoral?
It’s a yes or no answer.
6
kairosfocus
07/05/2011
12:51 pm
Mr Roache:
You are asking a loaded, complex, gotcha type distractive question that does not have a simple answer that will not be misinterpreted by those who are highly indoctrinated and polarised.
Which you know or ought to have known.
So, the question on its face, with the demanded yes/no dilemma type answer, is not honest but twisted.
I have no option but to address it in that light.
The first proper question, then, is: is there an IS that can ground OUGHT?
If one is standing on a worldview that has no basis for ought — in the teeth of the issue that some of these same are among those shouting loudest for “rights,” the question then is, whether we are looking at simply the sort of manipulative and abusive factionalism Plato warned of. If for instance, evolutionary materialism is true then rights are simply emotional manipulation that produces whatever balance of power at a given time.
As a descendant of slaves and as one from a country that had a small scale civil war over issues related to marxist agendas, that is a big red warning flag about evolutionary materialism and fellow traveller agendas or ideologies wearing lab coats and claiming the “right” to determine all serious matters.
If rights are real, ought is real.
And ought is only credibly rooted in the good Creator and God who would have made us — by whatever means he deemed suitable — in his image and set us under moral government.
In which case, our sexuality would have a creational purpose. One that seems fairly obvious. if particular patterns of sexual conduct such as pornography and many other popular pastimes in our day cut across that purpose and wreak harm, then these would be objectively wrong, by the test in the Categorical Imperative: what would happen if a particular behaviour is universalised?
(Morally unsound behaviours cannot be universalised, but must parasite off the fact that MOST people will not generally behave like that. The classic example of this is lying, say on checques, i.e. writing rubber checques. Having had ex-perience of a society where such became fairly common, the result was that the system of checques collapsed as a trustworthy instrument. And if lying more generally were universalised, communication would break down and society would break down, leading to chaos and destruction.)
So, I think the answer to your question is to return it to you with that context of the CI, and ask you to let us know what would happen if this pattern of behaviour became the norm in society?
The answer is fairly obvious as the experiment has been apparently tried at least once, and the attempt to redefine the institution of marriage and some recent court cases are fairly suggestive of likely consequences over the next several decades in our civilisation.
Now, I have given you a reasonable answer, and I will ask the moderators to ensure that this thread is not threadhjacked on a distractive and polarising side issue.
The issue that needs to be addressed is in teh original post:
On evolutionary materialist premises, how do we ground ought? And, what is the consequence of the evident, inherent amorality of same.
Notice, I am personally dealing with some of those consequences, which you have manged to neatly side-step, as though a mafioso-style threat against my family is of no concern to you and those you speak for.
That, too, tells me volumes.
Good day
GEM of TKI
|
--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine
|
