How does the free market promote social progress?

[Jon_Irenicus]

Does it need to be a particular gene though? IIRC, some scientists have theorized it occurs due to the hormonal imbalances in the womb.

-Jon

[JCFolsom]

@Jon Irenicus

Does it need to be a particular gene though? IIRC, some scientists have theorized it occurs due to the hormonal imbalances in the womb.

-Jon

We don’t really develop our secondary sex characteristics, including our sex drives, until we hit puberty. I don’t doubt that certain things (appearance or voice associated with the opposite gender, other factors) could contribute to the likelihood of developing homosexuality without directly causing it. And again, I have to ask, what evidence do these scientists have that such hormone fluctuations are even capable of such effects? It is just speculation. Sexual deviance (a harsh word, but used in this circumstance without moral content) already occurs in cases where people feel no need to speculate that there are genetic/hormonal causes. I believe such speculations are politically, rather than intellectually, motivated.

[Jon_Irenicus]

I don’t doubt that certain things (appearance or voice associated with the opposite gender, other factors) could contribute to the likelihood of developing homosexuality without directly causing it.

Causing it? Don’t you mean correlated? I’m not aware of the evidence on the hormonal imbalance theory, so I’ll leave it at that, but for scientists to entertain the view would suggest to me they’ve done more than just guesswork.

-Jon

[JCFolsom]

@Jon Irenicus

I’m not aware of the evidence on the hormonal imbalance theory, so I’ll leave it at that, but for scientists to entertain the view would suggest to me they’ve done more than just guesswork.

I would not assume that, not at all. Scientists, like the rest of us, have many motivations other than those they state or even acknowledge to themselves. Hawking got world famous for his theory that stated that even information was destroyed in black holes. Ten years later and with little fanfare, he announced he was wrong. Many scientists have grabbed onto theories such as multiple universes and string theory without any evidence whatsoever, just speculations that would match their preconceptions.

[gplauche]

@Morty

@Geoffrey Allan Plauche

Well, that’s a major problem, isn’t it? Your whole case depends upon something you claim can’t be justified.

I don’t feel it is a particularly important problem, no, and I never stated that the claim can’t be justified - all I said was that reason alone wasn’t going to get you there.

This is just a complaint about the ability of people to evade truth. It’s not an objection to any particular theory of ethics.

@Morty

You can’t give a reason for why anyone should value morality.

I don’t know that you can give a reason why anyone should value anything without making at least one unfounded assumption.

That right there is an unsupported assertion.

@Morty

Even if you could provide a compelling reason, or a compelling case that you are justified in taking it for granted that most people value morality, this doesn’t get you any specific content for morality.

I don’t know that this is the case at all, I think Kant did a very good job getting from valuing morality to the categorical imperative in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Maybe his case would be less compelling to you, I was personally swayed by it.

Oh, it wasn’t compelling to me at all.

@Morty

Kant is famous for holding that you only count as moral if you do your duty dis-interestedly. But this is bizarre.

Why is this bizarre? Simply because you don’t agree with it or because you cannot imagine valuing duty above all else?

Both. And more. It is a mistake to value something more highly than that of which it is only a constitutive part. It’s also an impossible, unrealistic standard…contrary to human nature (in the Aristotelian sense, not the Hobbesian or positivist-empiricist sense).

@Morty

He is also famous for holding that lying is always immoral, but this too is open to challenge. Why is lying as such always immoral? I can think of reasons why it might be the moral thing to do, such as when a kidnappers asks you where your daughter is hiding.

Kant dealt with this sort of objection in On a Supposed Right to Lie because of Philanthropic Concerns, and I would add that just because you have an obligation not to lie, you have no obligation to respond at all, and indeed, the moral action would likely be to refrain from saying anything to the kidnapper regarding your daughter’s location.

He didn’t deal with it satisfactorily. I contend it can be more moral to deceive the kidnappers. Taking another example, say you are the only one being threatened with bodily injury or death. You are innocent of any wrongdoing. A lie will save your life, perhaps even get the bad guys arrested and tried in a suitably libertarian court. I say such a lie is not only not immoral, it is moral. This is not to say that lying is not generally immoral and a bad idea; it is. But these considerations highlight in another way the inadequacy of Kantina ethics.

@Morty

No. We don’t assume it.

And deontological ethicists don’t assume that morality is an end in itself. We know it to be the case,

Well, now…that’s reassuring. Case closed. I guess we can call it a day. But seriously…

@Morty

that’s the basis of the ethical system we propose. But for the purposes of those who do not believe this, it is seen as an assumption,

Ah, but see. For the purposes of everything you build up on top of it, it is an assumption and an unsupported one at that.

@Morty

much as Aristotelean ultimate ends are seen as assumptions by those outside of that system (such as myself).

No. See…we actually have arguments for man’s ultimate end. And I’m not sure why you say “ultimate ends” as if there is more than one. In the concrete, there is, of course, because each person’s ultimate end is unique, being comprised as it is of particular aspects and universal aspects (the latter being a feature of all human forms of flourishing). But in the abstract, there is only one ultimate end: human flourishing. That you don’t know this tells me you know next to nothing of the ethical theory you are criticizing.

@Morty

There are certain general goods and virtues that are constitutive means (as opposed to instrumental means) for our natural end. They are ends-in-themselves, for they are valuable in their own rights, but they are also a means toward a higher end which includes them. See an article by Douglas Rasmussen in the JLS for why praxeology requires an ultimate end.

If you can provide a link, I’ll be glad to read it and get back to you with my commentary.

@Morty

Perhaps you should read the relevant works by Aristotle, Aquinas, Henry Veatch, Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl, Roderick Long, and Fred Miller, among others (such as myself).

Again, links or at least specific titles would be helpful. I don’t know what all the relevant works are nor which are of the greatest importance to the question at hand.

A simple search on the website will bring it up. But I believe there is a reading list in the politics forum that includes the relevant citations and links. Don’t be hasty now.