pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
2yr ago
Attraction seems like a red herring. If I have an obligation to anything, my joy at doing so is irrelevant. Nobody gets out of paying taxes due to really not enjoying it.
But that begs the question of why is there that obligation? What is the framework used to create the obligation and does the real effect of the obligation change the conclusion re the obligation?
For example, if the framework was utilitarian then the lack of joy limits the usefulness of the obligation.
No, it's more like: if you were ethical, you would be willing in the first place. And to be clear, this is not my position, this is the argument the OP presented. My point was just that in the framework of that set of premises and conclusions, attraction is irrelevant.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Attraction seems like a red herring. If I have an obligation to anything, my joy at doing so is irrelevant. Nobody gets out of paying taxes due to really not enjoying it.
But that begs the question of why is there that obligation? What is the framework used to create the obligation and does the real effect of the obligation change the conclusion re the obligation?
For example, if the framework was utilitarian then the lack of joy limits the usefulness of the obligation.
More options
Context Copy link
Unhelpful to the discussion but your username and tagline crack me up. Ah, fond memories from my younger years.
More options
Context Copy link
So I owe sex to people?
Possibly, if you accept the premises that lack of willingness that stems from unethical preferences is itself wrongful.
So you're saying, ethically speaking: unwilling sex < unethical preferences?
You realize how much this sounds like corrective rape?
No, it's more like: if you were ethical, you would be willing in the first place. And to be clear, this is not my position, this is the argument the OP presented. My point was just that in the framework of that set of premises and conclusions, attraction is irrelevant.
This completely ignores the emotional aspect... Am I misunderstanding? Are you are saying I can control who I am attracted to?
This shouldn't have to be said but I hear you.
Right, and my point is that this framework leads to disgusting ideas, like corrective rape.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link