New Jersey court rules gay marriages can begin Monday

[cole grey]

I'm not completely convinced of that.
Would you rather live a thousand years in misery or enjoy one hundred years of pleasure? Answer honestly, it's not meant to be set up as a false dichotomy...

I am not talking about personal choice but rather protesting against someone else making that choice for another. I honestly think it is a tough question because it would depend on other factors, such as meaningful achievement, curiosity about the future, the ability to do so much in 1000 years. And, of course, many people do choose pleasure over survival for themselves, which I assume is their human right.
However, I would say my survival trumps your pleasure and vice versa, although this idea gets fuzzy in the middle and only works well at the extremes, such as killing another for pleasure, or commandeering drinking water for a golf course.

 

[wynn]

how well is the commercialism building our self-esteem?

Some people believe it is doing just fine.

Also, how morally fair is it to ask slave owners to pay people to pick cotton??? Seems pretty fair to me.

Slave owners might disagree.

survival trumps pleasure.

If that were so, there'd be no suicides, no murders, people would be docile and patient, and perfectly willing to live in poverty or in wheelchairs and would have no issue with living like a vegetable plugged into machines after a car crash.

 

[wynn]

Quite morally fair. We are always being asked to "support the troops" "fight breast cancer" "recycle" etc. Most people can deal with such requests.

Esp. by ignoring them or by pseudo-altruism.

Same. It's always fair to ask.

Doesn't mean that people will comply.

It's very difficult, often impossible, to get people to commit to a significant change of their beliefs, values and lifestyle. While many people are willing to make small changes that don't threaten their basic outlook, those small changes are possibly not enough to bring about significant social and global change.


My point is that while it may seem acceptable enough to ask people not to build golf courses in the middle of deserts or baseball stadiums in the middle of corn fields, the people who desire to do such things may view such requests as highly offensive, as requests to give up their values, their beliefs, their lifestyle, their dreams.

Asking someone to give up their values, their beliefs, their lifestyle, their dreams is not morally fair.

Because some people care for more than just their own immediate needs.

Not all, obviously, hence the many problems.

 

[paddoboy]

I'm happy for all those that are gay!!



When I was a young bloke, gay meant being happy.
In that respect I'm always gay. [well mostly]

 

[cole grey]

If that were so, there'd be no suicides, no murders, people would be docile and patient, and perfectly willing to live in poverty or in wheelchairs and would have any issue with living like a vegetable plugged into machines after a car crash.

Everyone should get to make a decision for themselves. A lot of people do live in poverty or even their wheelchairs out of choice, because just watching tv is easier. Not my problem. If someone lives in poverty, BECAUSE I must have a particular pleasure, that seems wrong. Why don't you express your personal idea as well as intellectualizing the idea. I am interested to see if you are just playing devils advocate, or you actually disagree with the ethic, I know one can present problems with a viewpoint and still think it is the best option.
Doesn't my tribe's drinking water trump your dream of golfing on the weekend?

 

[wynn]

I am not talking about personal choice but rather protesting against someone else making that choice for another.

It's not like those building a golf course in the middle of the desert and using up all the water did so to spite the Indians living there. maybe they didn't even think of the Indians at all, maybe they were just "pursuing their passion" and "following their dreams."

It's hard to argue that one person is making a choice for another, when the first person didn't even think of the other person. One person's actions indeed can have consequences for other people, but those consequences are not always intended; in fact, they probably rarely are.

I honestly think it is a tough question because it would depend on other factors, such as meaningful achievement, curiosity about the future, the ability to do so much in 1000 years. And, of course, many people do choose pleasure over survival for themselves, which I assume is their human right.
However, I would say my survival trumps your pleasure and vice versa, although this idea gets fuzzy in the middle and only works well at the extremes, such as killing another for pleasure, or commandeering drinking water for a golf course.

This kind of problem is formalized as the Repugnant Conclusion:

"In Derek Parfit's original formulation the Repugnant Conclusion is characterized as follows: “For any possible population of at least ten billion people, all with a very high quality of life, there must be some much larger imaginable population whose existence, if other things are equal, would be better even though its members have lives that are barely worth living” (Parfit 1984). The Repugnant Conclusion highlights a problem in an area of ethics which has become known as population ethics. The last three decades have witnessed an increasing philosophical interest in questions such as “Is it possible to make the world a better place by creating additional happy people?” and “Is there a moral obligation to have children?” The main problem has been to find an adequate theory about the moral value of states of affairs where the number of people, the quality of their lives, and their identities may vary. Since, arguably, any reasonable moral theory has to take these aspects of possible states of affairs into account when determining the normative status of actions, the study of population ethics is of general import for moral theory. As the name indicates, Parfit finds the Repugnant Conclusion unacceptable and many philosophers agree. However, it has been surprisingly difficult to find a theory that avoids the Repugnant Conclusion without implying other equally counterintuitive conclusions. Thus, the question as to how the Repugnant Conclusion should be dealt with and, more generally, what it shows about the nature of ethics has turned the conclusion into one of the cardinal challenges of modern ethics."

 

[wynn]

Why don't you express your personal idea as well as intellectualizing the idea. I am interested to see if you are just playing devils advocate, or you actually disagree with the ethic, I know one can present problems with a viewpoint and still think it is the best option.

For one, I am exploring possibilities.

For two, I don't think that the problems of the material world can ever be solved.
As long as people believe that happiness and meaning are to be found in the pursuit of work, relationships, hobbies, sports, art, social activism and such, samsara will go on as scheduled.
(One of the meanings of "samsara" is 'aimless wandering.')

Doesn't my tribe's drinking water trump your dream of golfing on the weekend?

As I don't have a dream of golfing, your point is moot.

 

[cole grey]

For one, I am exploring possibilities.

I understand that part about your posts. Sometimes we need to ask weird questions or push limits to "strip away the chaff", so to speak.

As I don't have a dream of golfing, your point is moot.

Bah! you could just go along with the thought experiment you know, or ask for a definition, instead of deflecting my obvious question. How about gold miners in the black hills displacing, and causing the deaths of many of, the American Indians, for profit. Put aside the guy who was just trying to make a living digging in the ground, for the sake of simplicity, and talk about the capitalist who was in it just to buy his 5th or 10th home. And say he is not just accidentally displacing them, but is purposefully choosing his 5th house over some small tribe's ability to function and live. Is that morally wrong or not? Saying "ask the capitalist," isn't an answer to my question. What do you actually think?

 

[billvon]

Esp. by ignoring them or by pseudo-altruism.

Yes, both are possible responses.

My point is that while it may seem acceptable enough to ask people not to build golf courses in the middle of deserts or baseball stadiums in the middle of corn fields, the people who desire to do such things may view such requests as highly offensive, as requests to give up their values, their beliefs, their lifestyle, their dreams.

Then they do not have the courage to be able to live as a member of a society. When they are highly offended by simple requests to help others, they have serious underlying problems that need to be fixed.

Asking someone to give up their values, their beliefs, their lifestyle, their dreams is not morally fair.

Of course it is.

"Will you go out with me?"
"No."
That is OK to say even if it means they have to give up their dreams of going out with you.

"Can I borrow your car tomorrow?"
That is OK to ask even if you think they might say no.

"Mind moving your car out of the handicapped spot?"
Also fine to ask.

"Might not want to refer to gays using such slurs."
Likewise.

Living in a society means living with people who will ask you to do things. That's fine. You can always say no. If you can't handle being asked, then either professional treatment or a solitary lifestyle are goof options.

Not all, obviously, hence the many problems.

Not all - but fortunately most.

 

[wynn]

Living in a society means living with people who will ask you to do things. That's fine. You can always say no. If you can't handle being asked, then either professional treatment or a solitary lifestyle are goof options.

Strawmaning ... as usual ...

To hell with philosophy! Who needs philosophy when we have political corrrrectnesssss!

 

[wynn]

Bah! you could just go along with the thought experiment you know, or ask for a definition, instead of deflecting my obvious question.

I wasn't deflecting it. Ah. I said it doesn't apply to me.
If someone asked you "Do you use tampons or pads when you have your period?" you would answer ...?

How about gold miners in the black hills displacing, and causing the deaths of many of, the American Indians, for profit. Put aside the guy who was just trying to make a living digging in the ground, for the sake of simplicity, and talk about the capitalist who was in it just to buy his 5th or 10th home. And say he is not just accidentally displacing them, but is purposefully choosing his 5th house over some small tribe's ability to function and live. Is that morally wrong or not? Saying "ask the capitalist," isn't an answer to my question. What do you actually think?

Quite a while back already, Chomsky presented an argument against conspiracy theories that big companies and other big players are trying to deliberately destroy the little man. He said that big companies are just trying to survive too. It's just that when one little man tries to survive, this has little impact on others. When a big company tries to survive, this has big impact on others. But both are just doing the same thing: trying to survive. And while that may seem acceptable on the small scale, it is often seen as unacceptable on the large scale.
You crush ants and the big companies crush people.

Is it morally wrong that there exist big companies?


The simple crux of the matter is that the bigger ones are relatively better off, and the little ones tend to envy them. Are whales immoral, is it morally wrong for whales to exist, given that they are so big?