Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

MixedNuts comments on Are Deontological Moral Judgments Rationalizations? - Less Wrong

37 Post author: lukeprog 16 August 2011 04:40PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (168)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: MixedNuts 17 August 2011 03:53:46PM *  20 points [-]

Voted up for thinking about the problem, self-honesty, and more importantly for speaking up. (I don't quite understand whence the downvotes... just screaming "Boo!" at outgroup beliefs?) [Edit: at the time of this comment, the parent was at -5.]

It seems to me that by "sin" you just mean things that make you go "Squick!". Why do you expect that, if we found the relevant stone tablet, it wouldn't read "Spitting on the floor is wrong. Ew, tuberculosis.", nor "Maximise your score at Tetris.", but "Homosexuality is wrong."?

I'm really having trouble not snickering as I write this. I literally cannot empathise with "Homosexuality is wrong". I can sorta picture "Gay sex? Squick!", but the obvious followup is "Squick isn't a good criterion", not "Homosexuality is wrong". Also, pray tell, what (rather, whom) should genderqueers do?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 18 August 2011 03:13:40AM *  6 points [-]

I'm really having trouble not snickering as I write this. I literally cannot empathise with "Homosexuality is wrong".

If Arandur is correct, that makes you no different from the theist who literally can't imagine God not existing, or even anyone truly believing that God doesn't exist, and thus concludes that "atheists" are merely angry at God.

Comment author: Manfred 18 August 2011 04:54:48AM 2 points [-]

Not quite, since "empathize" is different from "imagine." Perhaps he even thought of this when making that word choice.

Comment author: MixedNuts 18 August 2011 12:47:20PM 1 point [-]

I didn't say it was a good thing! But as Manfred points out, I can imagine it. More than just imagine it: I know that people hold such beliefs, are sincere about it, and act upon them in acceptably predictable ways. I can also imagine it being true (like, it cause strange psychological damage, or if you zoom out and look at the universe like a painting it's prettier when purely heterosexual, or unresolved sexual tension is a really important emotion, whatever) - but that doesn't put me in the same mental state as people who currently believe it; namely, it makes me fall over laughing at how deeply weird the universe is.

It does make me no different from the theist who, upon reading blog posts carefully explaining "No, we don't hate your god, we just think it's a silly idea like the tooth fairy", stammers "Buh... buh... WHY?", looks for arguments, find they don't at all match eir arguments for theism, and walks away scratching eir head. The cure is more blog posts.

Comment author: lionhearted 18 August 2011 02:43:42PM *  4 points [-]

Take as a premise, "One of the key [insert suitable word choice something like: duties/responsibilities/purposes/nice-things-to-do] of being human is to carry on your ancestry and raise healthy children to serve as the next strong generation of humanity."

Or, as a less extreme version - "A mentally and physically healthy person having kids and raising them with more opportunities than they had is one of the easiest huge benefits for humanity. This is especially true if the person is particularly intelligent and thoughtful."

If you had one of those premises, you might come to the conclusion that homosexuality doesn't serve that goal.

Now me, I actually have the second ethic and do believe it, but I also have gay friends and could care less who anyone is loving, fucking, cuddling with, consorting abouts with, or whatever. Though if I had a son that was intelligent, healthy, and gay, I'd strongly encourage him to look into other ways to reproduce and get both the joy of having children and serve humanity by creating the next line of a-bit-more-intelligent and a-bit-better-informed people. (I don't know what I'd do if I had a daughter who was gay - I'd have to do more research. I think I understand well enough how a gay man thinks sexually and in terms of family, but I don't personally know any lesbian women so will refrain from an opinion until knowing more.)

(Edit: I realize this isn't a mainstream view. I tend to believe people have base temperaments and pushing people against their base temperament is a bad idea, but I also think one of the chief forms of the world getting better is by healthy people having kids and raising them with better opportunities and teaching them more than they knew growing up. So I sat down and thought it through, and this is what I came up with. I doubt I'm the only person in the world that thinks this way, but I'm pretty sure I've never heard it put this way before.)

Comment author: handoflixue 17 August 2011 06:22:00PM -1 points [-]

laughs I have always wondered how to define gay/straight/queer from a gender-queer perspective. I tend to figure the opposite of gender-queer is gender-absent, although I could see an argument that anyone who is gender-stable qualifies as fair game. :)

Comment author: MixedNuts 17 August 2011 08:30:44PM -1 points [-]

Gender-stable is the opposite of gender-fluid. Genderqueer is more disputed but seems to be a big umbrella including non-gendered and null-gendered and bigender and in-between people and then some and wow this is complicated. I'd just say the opposite of genderqueer is binary gender - the set {man, woman}.