(September 8, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:(September 8, 2015 at 4:59 pm)Anima Wrote: Very nice! It is indeed based on Kant's Categorical Imperative and is logically sound. Needless to say we see the argument if valid for the murderer, but just do not seem to want to see it for homosexuality. Bias? However, I am more than happy to hear your logical rebuttal as well as you argument in their favor. I wait with baited breath.
I'm not disposed toward deontological ethics, so I don't really care to play sophist with you on this point. For me, freedom for flesh and blood consenting adults trumps pie-in-the-sky hypotheticals, regardless of how logically rigorous they may be, any time.
And, um, it's "bated" breath. "Baited breath" might mean a lot of things but not what you seem to intend. For example, it could be taken as a sly way of you saying that you like to eat pussy, which would be in keeping with your transparent efforts to intellectualize an issue that is clearly visceral for you (bias?). But then I might suspect the lady doth protest too much.
My apologies for the typo. Thankfully you were here to point it out lest all come to ruin!
Now I doubt that. You see you will curtail the freedome of flesh and blood consenting adults should they consent to acts you deem to deontologically unethical. For example I am sure you would agree the law should prohibit people from ritualistic sacrifice even if the sacrificed consent to the act and the sacrificer consent as well. So now that we have establishy my theory is sound in principle we are just haggling over price or if you would the deontological ethics of the matter.
I am more than happy to intellectualize an issue as my desire is not to be viceral, but rather to be reasonable, rational, and logical. After all i would not want to be some kind of fervent nut who keeps affirming a position without any justification and in the face of facts and reason to the contrary.