Evolution: Is sexual selection sexist?

[Syne]

I’m a little confused, though, because Syne has been listing properties, possible causes, and implications.  We could continue to go back and forth in this process, but he said that his opinion was a meta-ethical stance. I thought that meta-ethics wasn’t concerned with properties, or whether or not something was right or wrong, but more about how we determine whether something is right or wrong.  So, it seems to me that we might want to ask how normality and deviations from normality affect our concept of right and wrong.

Meta-ethics is concerned with the definitions of terms like "right", "good", and "wrong". In my meta-ethical view, irrational behavior is bad but not morally reprehensible*, as it would be considered from the normative view of "bad". From the normative perspective, "bad" equates to "ought not", because normative ethics are prescriptive. From the meta-ethical perspective, "bad" doesn't necessarily prescribe any behavior, it only defines things in dichotomous terms, e.g. more bad than good and vice versa.



* Otherwise the mentally deficient would be morally castigated.

[Secular Sanity]

Meta-ethics is concerned with the definitions of terms like "right", "good", and "wrong". In my meta-ethical view, irrational behavior is bad but not morally reprehensible*, as it would be considered from the normative view of "bad". From the normative perspective, "bad" equates to "ought not", because normative ethics are prescriptive. From the meta-ethical perspective, "bad" doesn't necessarily prescribe any behavior, it only defines things in dichotomous terms, e.g. more bad than good and vice versa.

You’re right.  Meta-ethics attempts to answer broader questions.   When we say homosexuality or abortion is good or bad, it asks how we define 'good' or 'bad', but that’s not what you’ve been doing.  You've been telling us how people should behave.  You’ve inserted a whole lot of 'ought nots'.

These are all the ethics sub-branches.

• Meta-ethics: What does 'right' mean?
• Normative (prescriptive) ethics: How should people act?
• Descriptive (comparative) ethics: What do people think is right?
• Applied ethics: How do we take moral knowledge and put it into practice?

* Otherwise the mentally deficient would be morally castigated.

Oops! Sorry.  

[Syne]

Meta-ethics is concerned with the definitions of terms like "right", "good", and "wrong". In my meta-ethical view, irrational behavior is bad but not morally reprehensible*, as it would be considered from the normative view of "bad". From the normative perspective, "bad" equates to "ought not", because normative ethics are prescriptive. From the meta-ethical perspective, "bad" doesn't necessarily prescribe any behavior, it only defines things in dichotomous terms, e.g. more bad than good and vice versa.

You’re right.  Meta-ethics attempts to answer broader questions.   When we say homosexuality or abortion is good or bad, it asks how we define 'good' or 'bad', but that’s not what you’ve been doing.  You've been telling us how people should behave.  You’ve inserted a whole lot of 'ought nots'.

Where? Have I said people shouldn't be gay? No. Did I ever say my position on abortion was meta-ethical? No.
So you're going to need to support what appears to be only a straw man.

These are all the ethics sub-branches.

• Meta-ethics: What does 'right' mean?
• Normative (prescriptive) ethics: How should people act?
• Descriptive (comparative) ethics: What do people think is right?
• Applied ethics: How do we take moral knowledge and put it into practice?

And? I just said, "In my meta-ethical view, irrational behavior is bad". IOW, "bad" means "irrational". That's exactly the role of meta-ethics.

[Secular Sanity]

Where? Have I said people shouldn't be gay? No. Did I ever say my position on abortion was meta-ethical? No.
So you're going to need to support what appears to be only a straw man.  

"So while I do not think homosexuality is 'right', I also do not find any reason that they ought not, so long as no one is harmed."—Syne

You then went on to point out the harm, e.g. HIV.

Someone asked you if you were morally opposed to homosexuality or anal sex and you said homosexuality.  At one point you even used the word condemned.

"And it is a matter of 'what they do', not 'who they are'."—Syne

I’m serious, Syne, have you ever considered a career in politics?  You’d be a great politician.

[Syne]

Where? Have I said people shouldn't be gay? No. Did I ever say my position on abortion was meta-ethical? No.
So you're going to need to support what appears to be only a straw man.  

"So while I do not think homosexuality is 'right', I also do not find any reason that they ought not, so long as no one is harmed."—Syne

You then went on to point out the harm, e.g. HIV.

Someone asked you if you were morally opposed to homosexuality or anal sex and you said homosexuality.  At one point you even used the word condemned.

"And it is a matter of 'what they do', not 'who they are'."—Syne

I’m serious, Syne, have you ever considered a career in politics?  You’d be a great politician.

Condemned? Well, since you seem to want to rehash an old discussion from a forum you got banned from (apparently before you could participate in it...how long has it been, and you're still obsessed with it?):

Where I have repeatedly said that one behavior being considered wrong does not infer anything about the person in general. Can you not dislike something someone does without disliking the person? I dislike heavy drinking, but I have friends who do so, but are otherwise great people with many other virtues. Where is the outrage about stigmatizing other behaviors typically condemned? - http://www.sciforums.com/threads/an-asid...st-3167708

I do condemn heterosexuals that are irresponsible and promiscuous, as I have already told you elsewhere. - http://www.sciforums.com/threads/an-asid...st-3169577

No one has the right to legislate acceptance (i.e. "entitled to... [not] being condemned"), as this violates one of the most fundamental humans rights...the right to free thought. Again, "homosexuality" can refer to sexual behavior, not just orientation. And again, ad infinitum, behavior can be condemned without demonizing any person or group, as one "bad" behavior does not dismiss other potential virtues. - http://www.sciforums.com/threads/an-asid...st-3169582

Like I said then, maybe some people cannot comprehend condemning behavior without demonizing the person. The left sure seems to have a problem compartmentalize the two nowadays.

[Secular Sanity]

Like I said then, maybe some people cannot comprehend condemning behavior without demonizing the person. The left sure seems to have a problem compartmentalize the two nowadays.

I did not have sexual relations with that woman. We shared a cigar.

[Syne]

Is that an admission?

[RainbowUnicorn]

Where? Have I said people shouldn't be gay? No. Did I ever say my position on abortion was meta-ethical? No.
So you're going to need to support what appears to be only a straw man.  

"So while I do not think homosexuality is 'right', I also do not find any reason that they ought not, so long as no one is harmed."—Syne

You then went on to point out the harm, e.g. HIV.

Someone asked you if you were morally opposed to homosexuality or anal sex and you said homosexuality.  At one point you even used the word condemned.

"And it is a matter of 'what they do', not 'who they are'."—Syne

I’m serious, Syne, have you ever considered a career in politics?  You’d be a great politician.

Condemned? Well, since you seem to want to rehash an old discussion from a forum you got banned from (apparently before you could participate in it...how long has it been, and you're still obsessed with it?):

Where I have repeatedly said that one behavior being considered wrong does not infer anything about the person in general. Can you not dislike something someone does without disliking the person? I dislike heavy drinking, but I have friends who do so, but are otherwise great people with many other virtues. Where is the outrage about stigmatizing other behaviors typically condemned? - http://www.sciforums.com/threads/an-asid...st-3167708

I do condemn heterosexuals that are irresponsible and promiscuous, as I have already told you elsewhere. - http://www.sciforums.com/threads/an-asid...st-3169577

No one has the right to legislate acceptance (i.e. "entitled to... [not] being condemned"), as this violates one of the most fundamental humans rights...the right to free thought. Again, "homosexuality" can refer to sexual behavior, not just orientation. And again, ad infinitum, behavior can be condemned without demonizing any person or group, as one "bad" behavior does not dismiss other potential virtues. - http://www.sciforums.com/threads/an-asid...st-3169582

Like I said then, maybe some people cannot comprehend condemning behavior without demonizing the person. The left sure seems to have a problem compartmentalize the two nowadays.

Syne, so i if understand you correctly, you would never support a political group, party or person who sought to litigate against homosexuality ?
is that because you feel that in turn it promotes anti religous political movement that in turns makes christianity/islam etc illegal ?
or do you have a specific moral beleif ?

[Secular Sanity]

Is that an admission?

Nope. Just trying to loosen up that Bible belt of yours and let you know that you missed a loop. (Meta-ethics?)

[Syne]

Syne, so i if understand you correctly, you would never support a political group, party or person who sought to litigate against homosexuality ?
is that because you feel that in turn it promotes anti religous political movement that in turns makes christianity/islam etc illegal ?
or do you have a specific moral beleif ?

Depends. Are you talking about outlawing homosexual sex, or are you talking about promoting homosexual acceptance to the exclusion of other rights? Real rights require inaction, not action, since legislated action is coercion under threat of the state.

Nope. Just trying to loosen up that Bible belt of yours and let you know that you missed a loop. (Meta-ethics?)

Not a Christian. And even if I were, since I don't think appeals to authority are valid reasoning, I don't consider the Bible an authority.
But you just keep on erroneously stereotyping. How else would you ever demonize those who simply disagree with you?