Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : To be a Liberal,you have to believe that..... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (1173)	9/8/1999 3:05:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6418

Can you see that some of us might find it morally repugnant to have a state-of-being like homosexuality equated with maladaptive behaviors like substance abuse? It suggests that homosexuality is innately bad. And I reject that premise. As to your second point, isn't that precisely the question at issue? You reject the suggestion that homosexuality is innately bad. But other people accept that suggestion--indeed, might say that homosexuality is more maladaptive than substance abuse. And still others, like me, are genuinely undecided, seeing valid arguments on both sides of the issue. That offers three choices for people who hold those differing views: refuse to talk to each other; fight back and forth without any attempt to understand the other's position; or try to discuss what it is that makes a behavior innately good or innately bad, and how society should go about deciding which is which -- how, for example, a society decides that murder is bad but marriage is good, or perhaps a better example, that monogamous marriage is good but polygamous marriage is bad. As to your first question, I don't see the difference. Homosexuality and substance abuse are both behaviors, not a states of being like race or color. As I pointed out before, you can look at a baby in its cradle and determine "this child is female" or "this child is Asian," but you can't look at a baby in its cradle and say "this child is homosexual" or "this child is a substance abuser." (Unless, of course, the baby is born addicted.) The baby MAY have certain genetic proclivities which as they grow up will lead them toward homosexual behaviors or substance abuse behaviors, although that research is, IMO, far from conclusive either way. (If it were purely genetic, for example, identical twins would always be both heterosexual or both homosexual, which is not the case.) In terms of true states of being, like race or gender or caste, I agree that it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of those factors, because those are factors the person (except in the rare cases of Michael Jackson or sex changes) has no ability to change or affect. It is to me morally repugnant to discriminate against people for things they have no ability to affect or control. But in terms of behaviors, society can and must have the option of discriminating on the basis of certain behaviors. Society must be able to say that certain behaviors are favored and certain behaviors are unfavored. (Or, if you prefer, some will be rewarded and some punished.) Two very important points. First, and the crux of the matter: IMO, it doesn't matter what the origin of the proclivity for a behavior is: whether it is affected more by genetics or environment or other factors. If the behavior is good it is good no matter where it arises from, and if it is bad it is bad no matter where it arises from. (Interesting side point: as all social workers and family law attorneys know, spousal abuse tends to run in families. Is there a genetic component to it, or is it purely learned behavior? In my case, even if abuse were shown to be totally genetic, I would still throw abusers in jail.) Second point: How does society go about deciding which behaviors to reward, which to punish, and which to ignore (such as, to give a trivial example, whether you prefer to buy blue or green cars)? What principles should society use in making these decisions? This to me is the fascinating question which gets buried because we are so focussed on discussing the result (society finding that so-and-so behavior is good or bad) that we lose sight of the process and principles which we should be using in getting us there. For example, why do you reject the premise that homosexuality is bad while others embrace that premise? What principles guide you, what principles guide the others, and what principles should society use in resolving the difference between you? (And what principles should I use in making up my mind? This is the truly interesting part of the issue, and we tend to pass completely over it.