My english is better than that of conservative Americans

[jstrodel]

First of all, define "biologically correct" and what the fuck relation it has with ethics.

Do you think there is any possible way in any circumstance that biology could relate to ethics?


re: existence of homosexuality in biology: Do you think if people are genetically predisposed to cancer, that makes cancer biologically correct? Is consider considered biologically good, if people don't have control over whether they get cancer or not?

[Something completely different]

We have a saying here in Germany

"Du vermischst Kraut und Rüben!"

Which translates to: "You are mixing cabbage and turnips!"

It is used as a deprecative phrase to express discontent when debating a subject and the opposite simply brings forward an argument which has nothing to do with the subject.

A clear case here, didnt know how to express it in english.

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

We have a saying here in Germany

"Du vermischst Kraut und Rüben!"

Which translates to: "You are mixing cabbage and turnips!"

It is used as a deprecative phrase to express discontent when debating a subject and the opposite simply brings forward an argument which has nothing to do with the subject.

A clear case here, didnt know how to express it in english.

Sounds kind of like "apples and oranges," what we say when two things are not comparable.

[Rev. Rye]

re: existence of homosexuality in biology: Do you think if people are genetically predisposed to cancer, that makes cancer biologically correct? Is consider considered biologically good, if people don't have control over whether they get cancer or not?

I take it that you're considering "biologically correct" as equivalent to "healthy."

Apart from your phrasing being stupid, the problem is that it doesn't seem likely that homosexual sex is really any less healthy than heterosexual sex.

And quite frankly, just because something's healthy doesn't necessarily make it a moral good. It's not exactly a moral evil and I frankly consider it outside of questions of morality, especially when you don't bring other people into it.

[jstrodel]

Do you think there is any connection between ethics and correct human functioning? If not, doesn't that make your understanding self refuting and relavastic? Why not?


Why is health disconnected with moral goodness? Isn't the wrongness of murder connected to its effect on physical health? Do you think it is morally wrong to commit suicide? What about to intentional decrease the health of others?

If human life is intrinsically valuable, doesn't human life contain in it human health and make human health intrinsically valuable?


I think if you disconnect ethics from biology, you get something relativistic, unless you can define ethics on something unrelated to human physical characteristics.

[Rev. Rye]

Do you think there is any connection between ethics and correct human functioning? If not, doesn't that make your understanding self refuting and relavastic? Why not?

It's no more relativistic and self-refuting than saying that lightning isn't caused by God smiting down evildoers.

Isn't the wrongness of murder connected to its effect on physical health?

No, the wrongness of murder is connected to the fact that, if it's left unchecked, it will lead to the end of society.

Do you think it is morally wrong to commit suicide?

No.

[Justtristo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1p3vE6aOmA

English spelling is noticeably different to English pronunciation in it's various dialects. English spelling was standardized when it was undergoing the Great Vowel Shift around 1500. Other languages reform their spelling every so often to keep the spelling as close to the pronunciation as much as possible. However English does not do this, and given the pace which English is changing, the disparity between Written and Spoken English in a century or two is going to be the difference between say two closely related, however different languages.

To give you an example the word cast is actually pronounced as either kast (in Northern British dialects) or kæst (as in North American English) or kahst (in Southern British and Southern Hemisphere dialects).
So long as rote learning dominated the schools, people generally had good spelling despite of this disparity between pronunciation. However as rote learning has been replaced by whole language, spelling "mistakes" have increased. However I believe a lot of these spelling "mistakes" are actually words being spelt the way people actually pronounce them.

[jstrodel]

What is the connection between lightning and human nature playing a role in ethics?

Why should ethics be directed towards society? What if societies want to have human sacrifice, or imperialism is their end?

[Violet]

He's our new Pippy.

Every major forum has one..

I still miss pippy

We've gone too long without.

---

Sex is good for you. Gay sex, straight sex, it's all burns lots of calories. It's the best form of exercise. Also, lesbian sex really helps me with my upper body strength, which has never been my strong suit. And my stamina, because lesbians can go on literally all day.

So basically, I should never have sex... my body fat is on the line here!

---

Do you think there is any connection between ethics and correct human functioning? If not, doesn't that make your understanding self refuting and relavastic? Why not?

Depends on what 'correct' human functioning entails. Obviously... 'ethical' human functioning would require ethics... albeit: is this 'ethical' as in 'good' or 'ethical' as in 'possession of (any) moral principles'?

Why is health disconnected with moral goodness? Isn't the wrongness of murder connected to its effect on physical health? Do you think it is morally wrong to commit suicide? What about to intentional decrease the health of others?

Moral goodness as in 'being one's nature' or moral goodness as in 'X arbitrary observation of morality'? In the first case, it is not necessarily psychologically healthy to be not you. In the latter case, possessing moral goodness might go against oneself, which is psychologically unhealthy in many cases (though not necessarily all... depends on how 'health' is defined).

Murder isn't wrong, unless you make it wrong. If you have made it wrong, then it may or may not have an effect on physical health... though the impact is likely to be larger upon the psyche than upon the body.

I do not think it is morally wrong to commit suicide, although it is a selfish decision: it is sometimes the right one. Just as murder is sometimes the right decision. Value subjective, interpretations of 'right' and 'wrong' vary, foresight and knowledge pseudoscience and hindsight more of a murky 'I wish' than an observant answer.

In short: morality depends more upon on goal and presentation than anything else, and will vary within a single person as their situation changes.

If human life is intrinsically valuable, doesn't human life contain in it human health and make human health intrinsically valuable?

Not necessarily: depends upon the extent of 'life' you refer to. Immobile, unconscious, braindead, and sustained *just* enough to remain alive... and human health doesn't mean squat. If it's live human activity which is valuable, then their 'health' is likely to impact this. Cybernetics largely circumvents this.

Not that I'd agree that human life is intrinsically valuable, of course...

I think if you disconnect ethics from biology, you get something relativistic, unless you can define ethics on something unrelated to human physical characteristics.

Everything is relativistic, so it would make sense to not connect ethics to biology.

I can define ethics wholly separate from humanity... infact: I do.

[jstrodel]

What is the ground of ethics if not human nature? Why should anyone take your understanding of ethics to be authoritative?