Hi Quatona,
Do you think there is anything rational about the idea that we shouldn't exploit the decision of a prostitute to sell access to her body?
What I think is irrelevant. You made the claim, you support it.
I'm confused. Could you state your point again?
As soon as you will have specified which part of my statement is unclear to you.
Right so we both have convictions and belief systems.
This is certainly so, but you don´t know anything about my belief system. I have merely told you what I
don´t believe.
Apart from that, I would never be so bold to present my beliefs and value judgements as "objective".
I am trying to understand your perspective. I could use a little more help from you. It seems like some of the people on here just want to ask me questions and put all the burden on me, and get defensive when I ask them questions too. That's fine. It's human nature.
Well, I haven´t, don´t and won´t make assertive claims concerning the "morality" or "immorality" of contraception, so I needn´t defend them.
According to people who believe in objective morality, who believe, for example, that there is never any excuse for rape. As I understand it, you believe there could be an excuse for rape, or for adultery? Is that right?
No. I´m not a moralist, and I am not demanding excuses, in the first place.
If - as you claim - you are interested in understanding me, you would have to stop asking leading questions that force me to describe my views in
your terminology.
If you´d ask me for my personal subjective opinion about rape, I could go to great lengths verbalizing my disapproval and disgust. But, seeing how you want to defend a supposedly "objective" claim, that´s apparently not what you are asking me.
You don´t regard my personal subjective opinion "objective", do you? Neither do I, and neither do I regard yours as "objective". So there isn´t much point in asking me about my personal subjective convictions, for any intent or purpose of discussing your assertions. My personal subjective beliefs are as irrelevant as yours or the next guy´s when it comes to matters of alleged "objectivity".
Well, yes, it's possible but not very practical or a good idea.
That´s how other people see sex without contraception, given the situation they are in.
You are equating the decision to not move closer to one of my friends--who lives a long way off--to the decision to have contracepted sex. I'm sorry. I don't see the analogy.
You are aware that an analogy doesn´t mean the two things are the same (or else it wouldn´t be an analogy, in the first place), aren´t you?
An analogy serves the purpose of scrutinizing a particular criterium - that´s claimed to be the crucial criterium - by applying it to another situation.
It sounds sort of circular, like: being open to life, in sex, or being closed to life, in sex, is just a matter of preference, because it is a matter of preference.
I´m just giving you my observations: some people prefer this, others prefer this. If this weren´t an accurate observation, the things you call "immoral" wouldn´t even happen.
Well, why would it be right to have contracepted sex?
I don´t know. You would have to ask someone who claims that it´s "right".
"Right and wrong" are
your concepts and
your terms.
Can you explain why tolerating a physical, geographical distance between two friends is the same as choosing to have contracepted sex?
I didn´t say it´s "the same". An analogy is never about being "the same", or else we wouldn´t call it an analogy. An analogy is isolating a supposedly crucial criterium in order to check out whether it is indeed such a criterium.
Interesting. It seemed plain to me that you were saying that sex can be very light, and even anonymous, like chit chat.
Yes, I said it
can. That´s something else than claiming that it
is.
Yes,
certain forms of sexual communication are comparable to
certain forms of verbal communication (e.g.
anonymous sex that isn´t interested in getting to know the other person better can be compared to
chit-chat, small-talk. Other forms of sexual communication can be compared to a very open personal verbal exchange, others can be compared to polite talk or a therapeutic conversation, others might be even comparable to a prayer etc.etc.).
Okay so clearly you are now comparing sex to chit-chat.
No. You need to pay close attention. There´s a reason I verbalize things the very way I do. Persistently rewording them for me - pretending that that´s what I said - does not really appear to be token of your will to "understand me better" - as you claim is your intention.
Apparently one of the key differences here is that I see sex as something sacred because it is at the source of human life.
Yes. Your opinion is noted - as your personal opinion.
Sure. But neither is "Quatona thinks so" a very good argument.
That´s why I don´t make claims about the "morality" or "immorality" of contraception (even less claiming them to be "objective"), and that´s why I needn´t defend them.
Not necessarily. But why would you not find small talk a good idea, if you find that casual sex can be a good idea? I'm confused. Am I not understanding your ideas?
I didn´t say I find it a good idea.I said some people find it a good idea.
If all you had said were "I don´t find contraception/casual sex/... a good idea in my personal subjective opinion", we wouldn´t have this discussion.
You claimed them to be "(objectively) immoral".
But maybe "I don´t find this a good idea" and "it´s objectively immoral" are identical statements, in your terminology - in which case there has been a misunderstanding that you could have easily solved, had you responded to my request to define your keyterms properly.
I was under the impression that you were making supposedly "objective moral judgements", and not merely intending to compare what everybody feels are good or not so good ideas.