I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say about homosexuality. I don’t want to explore how traditional morality has advantages, because that’s a hard question and not something I have any reason to think I’d be all that good at. I do think that morality and tradition is complicated, so we have to be careful not to assume that we can reason through or against certain phenomena.
It’s always awkward talking about complex systems involving humans, because either you abstract away from individuals or you never talk about them. It’s even more difficult when trying to discuss why an individual should/shouldn’t take some self-interested action based on how other people may react, based on other peoples traditional views, which may be sensible or may be insane. Over time we enter an equilibrium based on the costs/benefits an abstract community places on certain actions. So, I think, the question becomes are individuals responsible for trying to keep a good equilibrium in place? And is it possible to easily predict how shifts will change the equilibrium for better or worse? I don’t know the answer to that, or that there even is an answer.
I get the point you’re making, and it’s an important one that I did not address, and thinking back I should have thought about it and admitted I don’t know the answer. That at the individual level people should weight their own cost/benefit with respect to their own life, not as part of some abstract group.
To your final point, I edited my post based on Daniel’s comment to remove the facebook link. I didn’t see it as a privacy violation, but since people think it’s bad etiquette I’m happy to adjust.
I think the progressive default is that individuals don’t have the burden to lead their sex lives in way their family approves of.
When you present “We don’t know how their families would react on an aggregate scale” as an argument you question that progressive default.
Homosexuality is as good of an example where parents can object to the sexual habits of their children as this example is.
So, I think, the question becomes are individuals responsible for trying to keep a good equilibrium in place?
I do think it makes sense to follow clearly beneficial social norms for the sake of society as a whole.
In this case you don’t make any specific case of why the social norm is worth protecting and a huge part of why the norm exists is due reasons that became obsolete with the introduction of birth control.
I don’t want to explore how traditional morality has advantages, because that’s a hard question and not something I have any reason to think I’d be all that good at.
Isn’t your whole post about how rationality leads to the violation of the morality that traditions prescribe?
I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say about homosexuality. I don’t want to explore how traditional morality has advantages, because that’s a hard question and not something I have any reason to think I’d be all that good at. I do think that morality and tradition is complicated, so we have to be careful not to assume that we can reason through or against certain phenomena.
It’s always awkward talking about complex systems involving humans, because either you abstract away from individuals or you never talk about them. It’s even more difficult when trying to discuss why an individual should/shouldn’t take some self-interested action based on how other people may react, based on other peoples traditional views, which may be sensible or may be insane. Over time we enter an equilibrium based on the costs/benefits an abstract community places on certain actions. So, I think, the question becomes are individuals responsible for trying to keep a good equilibrium in place? And is it possible to easily predict how shifts will change the equilibrium for better or worse? I don’t know the answer to that, or that there even is an answer.
I get the point you’re making, and it’s an important one that I did not address, and thinking back I should have thought about it and admitted I don’t know the answer. That at the individual level people should weight their own cost/benefit with respect to their own life, not as part of some abstract group.
To your final point, I edited my post based on Daniel’s comment to remove the facebook link. I didn’t see it as a privacy violation, but since people think it’s bad etiquette I’m happy to adjust.
I think the progressive default is that individuals don’t have the burden to lead their sex lives in way their family approves of.
When you present “We don’t know how their families would react on an aggregate scale” as an argument you question that progressive default.
Homosexuality is as good of an example where parents can object to the sexual habits of their children as this example is.
I do think it makes sense to follow clearly beneficial social norms for the sake of society as a whole.
In this case you don’t make any specific case of why the social norm is worth protecting and a huge part of why the norm exists is due reasons that became obsolete with the introduction of birth control.
Isn’t your whole post about how rationality leads to the violation of the morality that traditions prescribe?