Wisdom and Cheese (General)

by dhw, Saturday, December 03, 2011, 15:13 (4740 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: […] from the biblical standpoint, homosexuality, bestiality, incest and things like that are a 'sin'. Obviously, from a modern standpoint, homosexuality is considered, while perhaps nor normal, at least not a 'sin'. However, if you compare the description with the understanding of functional and dysfunctional, the concept makes much more sense. The intended purpose of mating is reproduction. Homosexuals and those practicing bestiality are not going to be able to reproduce, and incestuous relationships lead to birth defects, thus, none of these things 'function' in regards to the intended purpose.

Ouf! There are assumptions here which I really have to challenge, because they underlie certain prejudices. From an agnostic/atheist viewpoint – irrelevant for you – the idea of “intended purpose” doesn’t apply. Evolution has resulted in sex for its own sake, and that’s it. But even from your theist standpoint, we run into difficulties. If the purpose of sex is reproduction, why didn’t your god limit the “on heat” period as he did with many of our fellow animals? If you really believe there’s no other purpose, your marriage could be in trouble before your wife reaches 50! Sex as your God devised it is a pleasure, and I see pleasure as a purpose in itself. As regards homosexuals, I must admit I get a feeling of yuck at the very thought of having sex with another man, though I get the same feeling about most of the women I see in town – a feeling no doubt reciprocated! However, if your God disapproved, why did he make homosexuality so common among our fellow creatures? There are hundreds of species that indulge, including sheep, giraffes, bonobos, bison, elephants, and even birds like penguins and pigeons. If it’s OK for me and my wife to have sex for the sake of it, why shouldn’t homosexual giraffes, bonobos and my fellow humans have the same privilege without being told they’re dysfunctional? “Perhaps not normal” is gently cautious, but still prejudicial. I’ve met many admirable homosexual people in the world of the arts and would never dream of telling them they’re “perhaps not normal”. Of course I’m not talking here about paedophiles. Whether homo or hetero, these cause untold harm to others, and I sometimes wonder whether the Catholic insistence on celibacy in the priesthood isn’t a major contributory factor in its appalling record of abuse, since denial of sex for its own sake is clearly against the nature that your God himself created. I wouldn’t defend bestiality and incest, as these may do immense harm to the victims.

TONY: The same could be said for the so called 'seven deadly sins'. It is not a moral imperative, but simply, things that are dysfunctional. For example, gluttony will kill you because it is outside the intended scope of eating. Yes, hurting others is bad. I am not disagreeing with you on that point. However, I disagree with you that it is 'all we need to know'.

You’re right about gluttony, though I’d say the other ‘deadly sins’ ARE moral imperatives when they cause harm to others. But perhaps my moral code should include causing harm to oneself – which ultimately will also cause harm to others, unless the person is a recluse. I can see that ‘functional/dysfunctional’ may help us to understand some cases, but what is our aim here? Ultimately, we’re passing some kind of judgement, and for that we must have criteria. Is the action good or bad? The criterion I’ve offered is whether it’s harmful or beneficial, and I will happily extend this to the self as well as to others, always with the proviso that beneficial to the self must not entail harm to others. I can’t see how ‘functional/dysfunctional’ will help us to make the moral judgements on which our behaviour is based. In what way is raping a child “dysfunctional”, other than through your dubious restriction of sex to reproductive purposes? And if your purpose is not to establish moral criteria, what is it?

TONY: Another reason is because we have a tendency to project our current knowledge and beliefs and understanding on people that lived in a different world with a different understanding of reality. From a historical and anthropological perspective I think it is good for us to have a accurate understanding of what they thought and believed.

Your original motive of “curiosity” is fine with me. However, given the choice, I would say it’s infinitely more important that we should try to gain an accurate understanding of people who now live in the same world as us but have “a different understanding of reality”. The result of not doing so may be catastrophic.