pogi Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 3 hours ago, Danzo said: I remember as a missionary having to teach a family from Albania that revenge killings were wrong. They seem to think that it was OK to kill people who had insulted their honor. (and we had to talk a member of a family out of going out and killing someone). I would have been terrified of insulting their honor by telling them that they were wrong. Link to comment
The Nehor Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 7 hours ago, Danzo said: I remember as a missionary having to teach a family from Albania that revenge killings were wrong. They seem to think that it was OK to kill people who had insulted their honor. (and we had to talk a member of a family out of going out and killing someone). I wish I had a sense of honor worth killing to protect. Link to comment
clarkgoble Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 19 hours ago, mfbukowski said: One does not make ethical decisions based on scientific evidence. For me that is where the similarity with Rorty ends. BECAUSE it is impossible to make ethical decisions based on science, we base them on feelings which is a perfectly rational process since feelings are part of rationality itself. And that process can and does include the Holy Spirit speaking to our hearts. Interesting. That's different than what I thought. I didn't realize you rejected that much of Rorty's notion of solidarity. That's much closer to my own belief. And I might say Peirce since he'd say reality acts upon us leading us to certain beliefs. You don't like the word reality but appear to have something acting on us. Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Interesting. That's different than what I thought. I didn't realize you rejected that much of Rorty's notion of solidarity. That's much closer to my own belief. And I might say Peirce since he'd say reality acts upon us leading us to certain beliefs. You don't like the word reality but appear to have something acting on us. Well, our own "sentiments" which may include something sometimes called the "Holy Spirit", but those are still al mental states. That says nothing about some other "reality" outside our mental states. I think you block siggies, but the rest is all there in the Rorty quote I don't accept Rorty's view of a contingent self but I accept pretty much everything else, most definitely including this: Quote Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot." Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5. So there CAN BE no "reality" KNOWABLE aside from our own perceptions OF whatever causes our perceptions. I do not KNOW how that can be questioned as long as we are humans. To me it is virtually a tautology. We can only know what we can know. There is no "reality" by definition- which makes it trivial- except that which we CAN know. And for me that includes the inspiration of the "Holy Spirit" which is pretty much straight out of William James. Perceptions caused by the "Holy Spirit" are just as much perceptions coming from an unknowable cause of perceptions as seeing what we call a "red car" is. Some folks are blind, others may see "red cars" and some see the "Father and the Son". All are unique perceptions. We may agree about what are called "red cars" while we may be blind to other sources of perception. Moody Blues song: Quote Cold-hearted orb that rules the night Removes the colours from our sight Red is grey is yellow white But we decide which is right And which is an illusion We slice and dice those perceptions without even thinking about it and decide what they "are". To me it is clear as a bell and cannot understand others who insist on some other unknowable reality. It is like taking all these superpowers and talking animal movies literally to me. Quite absurd. Knowing what we cannot know? Doing what we cannot do? Good luck with that hypothesis. Edited July 23, 2019 by mfbukowski 3 Link to comment
clarkgoble Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Well, our own "sentiments" which may include something sometimes called the "Holy Spirit", but those are still al mental states.That says nothing about some other "reality" outside our mental states. Well I suppose that depends upon how you define mental states - the old internalism vs. externalism debate. If mental states include their content - so my experience of typing on the keyboard can't be separated from the act of typing on a keyboard - then I completely agree with you. If one attempts to reduce mental states just to brain or even nervous system states then I'd disagree. I take Peirce to embrace externalism such that the mental isn't necessarily localized physically. Quote Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot." Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5. Well I obviously have qualms with "human mind." The question again is what the mental is. As you know I reject the cartesian divide of the mental and the physical. Or, put a different way, the question is what the inside and outside mean. I think it's there that we tend to talk past one an other despite having fairly similar views. 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: So there CAN BE no "reality" KNOWABLE aside from our own perceptions OF whatever causes our perceptions. I think what you want to do is define "reality" in terms of Cartesian dualism but not everyone uses it the way Descartes did. Certainly neither I nor Peirce are so defining it. I'd probably quibble with "perception" since I think that caries certain baggage in terms of representationalism that I don't accept. I can comport with entities without necessarily forming a clear representation of them. Again though, I think the central divide here isn't really reality but rather the place of time in terms of knowledge. That is to what degree to expectations of future experience play in knowledge. Future experience can't really be called a perception yet, but seems important in understanding "reality" depending upon how you define it. Link to comment
blueglass Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 (edited) I really struggle with this topic as in my family I have two severely autistic non-verbal brothers which have tested my understanding of the purpose of life to learn and to be tested. In lds christian theology the life of the spirit began long before conception and the writing of the dna map or implantation of the blastocyst to the uterine wall. It began eons in the past to what we call pre-existence. New born babies come to us from the celestial kingdom where they lived in the presence of God. For my brothers I feel like they are in a jail cell in which a beautiful intelligent mind is in an incarceration state, trapped in a biologically malformed brain as an instrument for learning. Therefore if one could throw out a bad body and inhabit a new it would not destroy intelligent life as the information is stored in the 'cloud'. As we learn the biological substrate syncs the learning to the spiritual 'cloud' and no information is lost should the 25W water computer become damaged. In the case of why heavenly father aborted 33% of his children before they even had a chance to gain a body and experience could be troublesome? With such a vast intelligence gap between pre-existent spirits and himself, why would he so abruptly eject a capable learning agent who had zero mortal life experience and spoke without knowledge? When my teen rejects my teachings or argues with me I don't eject them from my house, family, and eternal association with me. Edited July 24, 2019 by blueglass 1 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 1 hour ago, blueglass said: I really struggle with this topic as in my family I have two severely autistic non-verbal brothers which have tested my understanding of the purpose of life to learn and to be tested. In lds christian theology the life of the spirit began long before conception and the writing of the dna map or implantation of the blastocyst to the uterine wall. It began eons in the past to what we call pre-existence. New born babies come to us from the celestial kingdom where they lived in the presence of God. For my brothers I feel like they are in a jail cell in which a beautiful intelligent mind is in an incarceration state, trapped in a biologically malformed brain as an instrument for learning. Therefore if one could throw out a bad body and inhabit a new it would not destroy intelligent life as the information is stored in the 'cloud'. As we learn the biological substrate syncs the learning to the spiritual 'cloud' and no information is lost should the 25W water computer become damaged. In the case of why heavenly father aborted 33% of his children before they even had a chance to gain a body and experience could be troublesome? With such a vast intelligence gap between pre-existent spirits and himself, why would he so abruptly eject a capable learning agent who had zero mortal life experience and spoke without knowledge? When my teen rejects my teachings or argues with me I don't eject them from my house, family, and eternal association with me. Your first question I have no answer to. As to Lucifer’s fall they did not act without knowledge. Their sin was not propounding an alternate plan; it was rebellion after it was rejected. Link to comment
USU78 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 11 hours ago, blueglass said: I really struggle with this topic as in my family I have two severely autistic non-verbal brothers which have tested my understanding of the purpose of life to learn and to be tested. In lds christian theology the life of the spirit began long before conception and the writing of the dna map or implantation of the blastocyst to the uterine wall. It began eons in the past to what we call pre-existence. New born babies come to us from the celestial kingdom where they lived in the presence of God. For my brothers I feel like they are in a jail cell in which a beautiful intelligent mind is in an incarceration state, trapped in a biologically malformed brain as an instrument for learning. Therefore if one could throw out a bad body and inhabit a new it would not destroy intelligent life as the information is stored in the 'cloud'. As we learn the biological substrate syncs the learning to the spiritual 'cloud' and no information is lost should the 25W water computer become damaged. In the case of why heavenly father aborted 33% of his children before they even had a chance to gain a body and experience could be troublesome? With such a vast intelligence gap between pre-existent spirits and himself, why would he so abruptly eject a capable learning agent who had zero mortal life experience and spoke without knowledge? When my teen rejects my teachings or argues with me I don't eject them from my house, family, and eternal association with me. A neighbor was asked to speak to his personal experience. His brother had been grossly dysfunctional, drugs and other self defeating and antisocial behavior over a number of years leading to full time hospitalization. As he slowly descended into near catatonia, my friend and his wife made the decision to go and visit him weekly for years and years. When the doctors determined that he was in active dying about a year ago, my friend asked him, as he always did, "Do you know where you are? Do you know why you're here?" He actually answered, clearly and with strength, "I am here for the benefit of John and Jane Doe." Link to comment
Dan McClellan Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 On 7/20/2019 at 6:52 AM, Amulek said: I'm saying that certain risks are inherent when it comes to sex. And, absent one partner being sterile, pregnancy is always going to be one of those risks. Let's not pretend women aren't capable of understanding that. I think you're failing to see the difference between specific consent and assumed risk. If you knowingly and willfully participate in a risky activity then you are the one who voluntarily accepts those risks when you freely decide to participate. This is why your argument sounds so unconvincing to me. By analogy, it would be like my wife saying, 'Well, I consent to having you drive me to the airport, but I do not consent to you getting involved in an accident on the way there.' Only, unfortunately, while stuck in stop-and-go traffic, another car rear ends our vehicle. So, while it is trivially true that my wife never specifically consented to being involved in an accident, when she freely decided to get into the passenger seat and let me drive she assumed the risk that such an event might occur. And risks differ. I risk being mugged every time I step outside of my house, but that doesn't mean it's my fault if someone does mug me. That risk is relatively small compared to numerous other actions that could significantly increase that risk. When that risk becomes significantly increased entirely because of the agency of another person, it's just laughable to say I am responsible because I initially accepted that much smaller risk. Take your "ride" analogy, for instance. People don't usually intentionally get into a car accident, but let's say someone's wife accepts the risk of driving in a car, but then the driver intentionally crashes the car. We have a reasonable presumption that someone giving us a ride will not crash the car. Are you still saying that because she accepted that risk, she consented to being involved in the accident because she freely decided to get into the passenger seat? Suggesting I'm insisting women don't have the intelligence to understand risk is just a ludicrous rhetorical jab. 1 Link to comment
Dan McClellan Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 On 7/20/2019 at 11:28 PM, Hamba Tuhan said: Right. What discipline? Cognitive science of religion and cognitive linguistics. Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 19 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Well I suppose that depends upon how you define mental states - the old internalism vs. externalism debate. If mental states include their content - so my experience of typing on the keyboard can't be separated from the act of typing on a keyboard - then I completely agree with you. If one attempts to reduce mental states just to brain or even nervous system states then I'd disagree. I take Peirce to embrace externalism such that the mental isn't necessarily localized physically. Well I obviously have qualms with "human mind." The question again is what the mental is. As you know I reject the cartesian divide of the mental and the physical. Or, put a different way, the question is what the inside and outside mean. I think it's there that we tend to talk past one an other despite having fairly similar views. I think what you want to do is define "reality" in terms of Cartesian dualism but not everyone uses it the way Descartes did. Certainly neither I nor Peirce are so defining it. I'd probably quibble with "perception" since I think that caries certain baggage in terms of representationalism that I don't accept. I can comport with entities without necessarily forming a clear representation of them. Again though, I think the central divide here isn't really reality but rather the place of time in terms of knowledge. That is to what degree to expectations of future experience play in knowledge. Future experience can't really be called a perception yet, but seems important in understanding "reality" depending upon how you define it. Well we seem to go in circles here but I thought I would try once more. First of all it seems to me that you are more of a "classifier" than I am- you like to see philosophy, I think, as a huge historical flow chart with arrows pointing from one "ism" to another and illustrations on the links, perhaps, so that by classifying what the philosopher in question believes you can associate him with the correct "ism" and therefore see the bigger picture of where he belongs in philosophical history. I don't read philosophers that way. I rummage through the heap of philosophical literature looking for ideas that look interesting and then follow the connections that might lead to something more interesting in the heap, and if they don't connect, then I throw them back into the trash heap and start rummaging again for something interesting. I virtually always look at primary sources in my rummaging and do not try to classify ideas at all, and just look at them as interesting ideas, and then follow their connections as far as I can- until I see them go "astray" at least from my personal point of view. I am assembling a philosophical nest, by picking up a piece of straw here, a twig there which I know will fit exactly into that hole in the nest. I fill in the holes with my own philosophical feathers gleaned over years of experiences spiritual and other wise. So my nest is a hodge-podge of the sticks and straw of others, lined by my own experiences to stick together all that I have gleaned from others. I especially like to steal from the nests of my other "birds of a feather", the Pragmatists So our approaches are quite different, at least as far as I see it, from the beginning. I think your philosophical "house" must be very orderly, while mine is a desk stacked high with books and notes in apparent chaos, waiting to be mined for gems. But I know that "Idea A" is about three inches down in the third stack on the left, when it is time to fit that piece of straw into the nest. I know where all those ideas are stashed. Quote Well I suppose that depends upon how you define mental states - the old internalism vs. externalism debate. If mental states include their content - so my experience of typing on the keyboard can't be separated from the act of typing on a keyboard - then I completely agree with you. If one attempts to reduce mental states just to brain or even nervous system states then I'd disagree. I take Peirce to embrace externalism such that the mental isn't necessarily localized physically. I would go with Nagel on that one. And again I am a subscriber to analytic philosophy which makes quick work of this old problem. Nagel would say something like "Statements about physical brain activities, being in the third person, can never contain all the meaning within a first person statement about an experience" I could look up an exact quote, but that will probably do. The statement "Oh that is a red Maserati" does not contain the meaning of "Bukowski's brain is showing activity in zone abc connected to other activity in location xyz" therefore statements about what we experience can never be made logically identical with statements about the brain. Poof. Easy as pie. Quote Well I obviously have qualms with "human mind." The question again is what the mental is. As you know I reject the cartesian divide of the mental and the physical. Or, put a different way, the question is what the inside and outside mean. I think it's there that we tend to talk past one an other despite having fairly similar views. Already solved. Quote I think what you want to do is define "reality" in terms of Cartesian dualism but not everyone uses it the way Descartes did. Certainly neither I nor Peirce are so defining it. I'd probably quibble with "perception" since I think that caries certain baggage in terms of representationalism that I don't accept. I can comport with entities without necessarily forming a clear representation of them. I would never try to define "reality" at all. I suppose the closest I would get is Rorty- Quote " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states. To believe there is not "something out there" means you should be in a funny farm. To try to say what it "really is", is just meaningless babble. Take your pick. We make up stories, called "paradigms" which work until another one comes along that works better in predicting what our experiences will be, by adding chemical A to chemical B, etc, or what reading we will get in the cyclotron gizmo-meter after we tweak the whatsis. But what we decide it all "means" WILL change, and probably change soon Quote Again though, I think the central divide here isn't really reality but rather the place of time in terms of knowledge. That is to what degree to expectations of future experience play in knowledge. Future experience can't really be called a perception yet, but seems important in understanding "reality" depending upon how you define it. Yep, that's why we have paradigms. They work until something goes differently than predicted and then they change to a paradigm that results in a yet better prediction of the brain states of the observer(s) and "peer review" which brings in what everybody else's brain states tell them as well when they repeat the experiment/experience There's no magic or complicated metaphysics or "isms" here, it's all just Wittgensteinian common sense. Until something better comes around. My brainstates say it's time for lunch. Perfectly predictable. Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 5 hours ago, Dan McClellan said: Cognitive science of religion and cognitive linguistics. What do you think of Justin Barrett? Link to comment
Ryan Dahle Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 5 hours ago, Dan McClellan said: And risks differ. I risk being mugged every time I step outside of my house, but that doesn't mean it's my fault if someone does mug me. That risk is relatively small compared to numerous other actions that could significantly increase that risk. When that risk becomes significantly increased entirely because of the agency of another person, it's just laughable to say I am responsible because I initially accepted that much smaller risk. Take your "ride" analogy, for instance. People don't usually intentionally get into a car accident, but let's say someone's wife accepts the risk of driving in a car, but then the driver intentionally crashes the car. We have a reasonable presumption that someone giving us a ride will not crash the car. Are you still saying that because she accepted that risk, she consented to being involved in the accident because she freely decided to get into the passenger seat? Suggesting I'm insisting women don't have the intelligence to understand risk is just a ludicrous rhetorical jab. I think the analogy should probably be more along these lines: What if the wife knew that by getting into the car she would inherently have a high risk of getting into a crash, and what if she also knew that there was a real risk of the driver intentionally texting the whole time (against her wishes), thereby adding increased risk to an already risky activity. And what if there was nothing coercing or forcing her into the vehicle and no reason that she had to get into the vehicle, other than the pleasure of taking a drive. The negligent driver would certainly be "entirely" responsible for his own risky behavior and for increasing the risk of harm to another through his negligence. But the wife would also be "entirely" responsible for engaging in what she knew at the outset was risky behavior and for knowingly and willingly getting into the vehicle with someone that she knew might be prone to text and drive. While she certainly would be somewhat less responsible than the negligent driver for any harm caused to her, she would still be highly responsible herself for taking such an unnecessary risk. 2 Link to comment
Dan McClellan Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: What do you think of Justin Barrett? He's published some good stuff on anthropomorphism and theological correctness, and just this year there was an interesting study he published on where people perceive deities to dwell. His 2011 book, Cognitive Science, Religion & Theology, is a good intro to CSR. 1 Link to comment
Dan McClellan Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said: I think the analogy should probably be more along these lines: What if the wife knew that by getting into the car she would inherently have a high risk of getting into a crash, and what if she also knew that there was a real risk of the driver intentionally texting the whole time (against her wishes), thereby adding increased risk to an already risky activity. And what if there was nothing coercing or forcing her into the vehicle and no reason that she had to get into the vehicle, other than the pleasure of taking a drive. The negligent driver would certainly be "entirely" responsible for his own risky behavior and for increasing the risk of harm to another through his negligence. But the wife would also be "entirely" responsible for engaging in what she knew at the outset was risky behavior and for knowingly and willingly getting into the vehicle with someone that she knew might be prone to text and drive. While she certainly would be somewhat less responsible than the negligent driver for any harm caused to her, she would still be highly responsible herself for taking such an unnecessary risk. You're assigning exaggerated risk and prior experience with violations of trust and agency. Why? Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 15 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said: He's published some good stuff on anthropomorphism and theological correctness, and just this year there was an interesting study he published on where people perceive deities to dwell. His 2011 book, Cognitive Science, Religion & Theology, is a good intro to CSR. Thanks. I agree. Link to comment
Ryan Dahle Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 18 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said: You're assigning exaggerated risk and prior experience with violations of trust and agency. Why? That is too vague. I can't tell precisely what you mean. Link to comment
Amulek Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 (edited) 13 hours ago, Dan McClellan said: When [a] risk becomes significantly increased entirely because of the agency of another person, it's just laughable to say I am responsible because I initially accepted that much smaller risk. No, what is laughable is the way in which you are trying to separate consent to intercourse from the obvious, natural, and known male reproductive response to intercourse. I mean, honestly, just try making the argument in reverse and see how silly it sounds. Imagine a man saying that pregnancy is mostly a woman’s choice because, you know, women ovulate, and even though a man may have consented to having sex with a woman doesn't mean that he ever consented to having sex with her while she was ovulating. Ah, ha! Men are now off the hook and pregnancy is all women’s choice! (not) Look, whenever a woman voluntarily has sex with a man, there is an unknowable, non-zero chance that she will become pregnant. So, if you are a woman and you agree to have sex with a man, and you are relying exclusively on the man for birth control during sex, then the spectrum of risk that you could become pregnant is generally going to be anywhere between 2% and 25%, though most commonly it falls somewhere more around the 15% - 20% range. Women, I think, understand this reality and make choices about their sex lives knowing full-well what the risks are. In fact, I dare say that they are much more aware of the risks than men are, which is why your position that pregnancy is mostly the man’s fault sounds so infantilizing to me. Edited July 25, 2019 by Amulek 1 Link to comment
Dan McClellan Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 58 minutes ago, Amulek said: No, what is laughable is the way in which you are trying to separate consent to intercourse from the obvious, natural, and known male reproductive response to intercourse. The obvious, natural, and known male reproductive response to intercourse is to ejaculate inside a woman without her consent and against her wishes? You're intentionally parsing away context, and that's just pure and utter nonsense. I have no more time to waste on such nonsense. Link to comment
Dan McClellan Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 3 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: That is too vague. I can't tell precisely what you mean. You're suggesting the analogy should be with a woman who is at a much greater risk and for some reason suspects that her partner intends to intentionally endanger her life. That seems a rather arbitrary way to try to raise the level of the risk to make it seem like a person should know better, but sexual encounters between consenting adults don't usually involve such elevated suspicions and risks. Link to comment
Amulek Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Dan McClellan said: The obvious, natural, and known male reproductive response to intercourse is to ejaculate inside a woman without her consent and against her wishes? I think you're being willfully obtuse here. You know full well how the male sexual response cycle works: male sex organ + friction = orgasm and ejaculation. Intercourse provides everything on the left hand side of the equation, creating an environment within the female body not just conducive to, but one especially designed to illicit what happens on the other side of the equation. If a woman neither consents nor wishes for a man to ejaculate inside of her that's fine; however, engaging in sex isn't exactly the best way to go about making sure that doesn't happen. Seriously, this isn't rocket science. Quote You're intentionally parsing away context, and that's just pure and utter nonsense. I have no more time to waste on such nonsense. Probably for the best. You're mostly just repeating yourself at this point, and I don't think either of us are going to change each other's minds. Edited July 25, 2019 by Amulek Edited to moderate tone. 2 Link to comment
clarkgoble Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 20 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I would go with Nagel on that one. And again I am a subscriber to analytic philosophy which makes quick work of this old problem. Nagel would say something like "Statements about physical brain activities, being in the third person, can never contain all the meaning within a first person statement about an experience" I could look up an exact quote, but that will probably do. I certainly agree with that, although I would add that most analytic philosophers are physicalists and disagree with the two of us. But I agree we're going round and round. Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 (edited) 17 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: I certainly agree with that, although I would add that most analytic philosophers are physicalists and disagree with the two of us. But I agree we're going round and round. Wittgenstein invented "ordinary language analysis" and was not a physicalist nor was Nagel or Rorty. Nope. I could go on... Language is all there IS to analyze using language Edited July 25, 2019 by mfbukowski Link to comment
Ryan Dahle Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 (edited) 16 hours ago, Dan McClellan said: You're suggesting the analogy should be with a woman who is at a much greater risk and for some reason suspects that her partner intends to intentionally endanger her life. That seems a rather arbitrary way to try to raise the level of the risk to make it seem like a person should know better, but sexual encounters between consenting adults don't usually involve such elevated suspicions and risks. My assumption is that there is a much greater risk of a woman getting pregnant from consensual intercourse than there is of getting in a car crash. So, like all analogies, the car ride isn't perfectly equivalent to the situation it is being compared with. It was simply meant to help illustrate that the agency of a woman in consensual intercourse does indeed play a large role in any burdens that may come to her in the event that she gets pregnant. It seems like you are trying to redirect any responsibility that women may have for avoiding risky behavior and placing it almost completely upon the men involved in such situations. That is what is clearly perplexing to those who are disagreeing with you, and you seem to be skirting the primary issue by focusing on the much rarer instances of deception or coercion, which several posters have made clear isn't what is being addressed. Even when the issue of deception is taken into account (such as when a man secretly removes a condom), the woman still holds some responsibility. Part of that responsibility comes from the fact that it is widely known that there is still a 2% chance of getting pregnant even when the device is properly used, and up to a 15% chance of getting pregnant when it is improperly used. Then there is the variable possibility that a male partner might be deceptive during intercourse. If that wasn't a real phenomenon, we wouldn't be talking about it on this discussion board. Many women know that this is a tendency among some men, and those who are aware of that fact have some responsibility to assess the integrity of their partner before engaging in intercourse. If a women knew that by entering into a vehicle there was a 2 to 15% chance that it might crash, depending on the competence and integrity of the driver, she would clearly be knowingly engaging in risky behavior by entering into the vehicle, and even more so if she had any doubts about the driver. Lets leave the analogy and I'll state my position clearly: 1. When a man and a woman engage in consensual intercourse and there is neither deception nor coercion involved, they are mutually and equally responsible/accountable/culpable for any unwanted pregnancy that results from that act. This is true whether they mutually decide to use a contraceptive or not. 2. When a man and a woman engage in consensual intercourse and one partner fails to use a method of contraceptive properly, simply due to ignorance or a lack of competence, they are still mutually and equally responsible/accountable/culpable for any unwanted pregnancy that results from that act. Both partners essentially have an equal responsibility to ensure that any sort of contraceptive is properly used and that the other partner knows how to use it. 3. When a man and a woman engage in consensual intercourse and one partner knowingly and deceptively misuses or fails to use a contraceptive, then the partner who engages in the deception is much more responsible/accountable/culpable for any unwanted pregnancy that may result. However, the deceptive partner is not solely responsible, seeing that there was an inherent risk of getting pregnant, even without the deceptive act. Moreover, if the non-deceptive partner knew that there was a real possibility that the other partner might deceptively increase the risk of pregnancy, the non-deceptive partner would be somewhat responsible for taking that added risk, even though such a scenario wouldn't equalize the blame/responsibility (the deceptive partner would still be much more culpable, in my view). 4. When one partner physically forces or otherwise coerces (via drugs, blackmail, threats, etc.) another partner to engage in intercourse, the one engaging in coercion is entirely (or almost entirely, depending on the degree of coercion) responsible/accountable/culpable for any unwanted pregnancy that may result. I acknowledge that women are disproportionately burdened by unwanted pregnancies, and that even though many societies are currently seeking to reduce this disproportionate burden, it still exists. I think it is good for society to do all it can to equalize that burden when both parties are mutually at fault. The fact is, though, that society can't change the fact that women are biologically burdened to carry and nurture a baby in their bodies. That being the case, I'm not sure why men would have more of a responsibility to ensure that women aren't unduly burdened by unwanted pregnancies than women do themselves. Again, it seems that responsibility for ensuring that these unfair outcomes don't transpire is mutually and equally held by both genders. Whether or not the value of the life of the unborn child outweighs rights to privacy and the liberty to live one's own life as one desires is a separate but very related matter. That is because how responsible a woman is for having an unwanted pregnancy somewhat plays into the debate about whether or not abortion is justified in certain circumstances. Many people are much more willing to countenance abortion when the pregnancy was the result of rape or coercion than when it was merely the result of consensual intercourse. It would seem that those who want to place the responsibility for unwanted pregnancies entirely on men would get increased moral leverage to advocate for the justification of abortion in all circumstances. When women are not only seen as disproportionately burdened by unwanted pregnancies but also as complete victims (in all cases) rather than fully consensual participants in the act that caused this unfair burden, then society will be more sympathetic to unrestricted abortions. Edited July 25, 2019 by Ryan Dahle 2 Link to comment
USU78 Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: My assumption is that there is a much greater risk of a woman getting pregnant from consensual intercourse than there is of getting in a car crash. So, like all analogies, the car ride isn't perfectly equivalent to the situation it is being compared with. It was simply meant to help illustrate that the agency of a woman in consensual intercourse does indeed play a large role in any burdens that may come to her in the event that she gets pregnant. It seems like you are trying to redirect any responsibility that women may have for avoiding risky behavior and placing it almost completely upon the men involved in such situations. That is what is clearly perplexing to those who are disagreeing with you, and you seem to be skirting the primary issue by focusing on the much rarer instances of deception or coercion, which several posters have made clear isn't what is being addressed. Even when the issue of deception is taken into account (such as when a man secretly removes a condom), the woman still holds some responsibility. Part of that responsibility comes from the fact that it is widely known that there is still a 2% chance of getting pregnant even when the device is properly used, and up to a 15% chance of getting pregnant when it is improperly used. Then there is the variable possibility that a male partner might be deceptive during intercourse. If that wasn't a real phenomenon, we wouldn't be talking about it on this discussion board. Many women know that this is a tendency among some men, and those who are aware of that fact have some responsibility to assess the integrity of their partner before engaging in intercourse. If a women knew that by entering into a vehicle there was a 2 to 15% chance that it might crash, depending on the competence and integrity of the driver, she would clearly be knowingly engaging in risky behavior by entering into the vehicle, and even more so if she had any doubts about the driver. Lets leave the analogy and I'll state my position clearly: 1. When a man and a woman engage in consensual intercourse and there is neither deception nor coercion involved, they are mutually and equally responsible/accountable/culpable for any unwanted pregnancy that results from that act. This is true whether they mutually decide to use a contraceptive or not. 2. When a man and a woman engage in consensual intercourse and one partner fails to use a method of contraceptive properly, simply due to ignorance or a lack of competence, they are still mutually and equally responsible/accountable/culpable for any unwanted pregnancy that results from that act. Both partners essentially have an equal responsibility to ensure that any sort of contraceptive is properly used and that the other partner knows how to use it. 3. When a man and a woman engage in consensual intercourse and one partner knowingly and deceptively misuses or fails to use a contraceptive, then the partner who engages in the deception is much more responsible/accountable/culpable for any unwanted pregnancy that may result. However, the deceptive partner is not solely responsible, seeing that there was an inherent risk of getting pregnant, even without the deceptive act. Moreover, if the non-deceptive partner knew that there was a real possibility that the other partner might deceptively increase the risk of pregnancy, the non-deceptive partner would be somewhat responsible for taking that added risk, even though such a scenario wouldn't equalize the blame/responsibility (the deceptive partner would still be much more culpable, in my view). 4. When one partner physically forces or otherwise coerces (via drugs, blackmail, threats, etc.) another partner to engage in intercourse, the one engaging in coercion is entirely (or almost entirely, depending on the degree of coercion) responsible/accountable/culpable for any unwanted pregnancy that may result. I acknowledge that women are disproportionately burdened by unwanted pregnancies, and that even though many societies are currently seeking to reduce this disproportionate burden, it still exists. I think it is good for society to do all it can to equalize that burden when both parties are mutually at fault. The fact is, though, that society can't change the fact that women are biologically burdened to carry and nurture a baby in their bodies. That being the case, I'm not sure why men would have more of a responsibility to ensure that women aren't unduly burdened by unwanted pregnancies than women do themselves. Again, it seems that responsibility for ensuring that these unfair outcomes don't transpire is mutually and equally held by both genders. Whether or not the value of the life of the unborn child outweighs rights to privacy and the liberty to live one's own life as one desires is a separate but very related matter. That is because how responsible a woman is for having an unwanted pregnancy somewhat plays into the debate about whether or not abortion is justified in certain circumstances. Many people are much more willing to countenance abortion when the pregnancy was the result of rape or coercion than when it was merely the result of consensual intercourse. It would seem that those who want to place the responsibility for unwanted pregnancies entirely on men would get increased moral leverage to advocate for the justification of abortion in all circumstances. When women are not only seen as disproportionately burdened by unwanted pregnancies but also as complete victims (in all cases) rather than fully consensual participants in the act that caused this unfair burden, then society will be more sympathetic to unrestricted abortions. All heterosexual sex is rape. Didn't you know? Per Andrea Dworkin. Link to comment
Recommended Posts