Catholic Conversation with Gay Friend about Gay Marriage

[LadyFriend]

How so?

Perhaps you go around harming a ton of people every day but most people I know don't.

Maybe you need better friends.

Every (in)action we take has a consequence. Usually there are good and bad consequences to every (in)action. Harm occurs based upon intentional and unintentional actions. This is Philosophy/Ethics 101 and I have been lurking on FJ long enough to know that you are smart enough to know all of this. That's why I asked.

So...is it certain types of harm? Certain types of intentionality?

ETA: Example: I live in the city and pass by homeless people several times a day. Sometimes I give them money or food...sometimes I don't. Either choice in a given situation likely does both good and/or harm. "Harm" is unavoidable.

[OkToBeTakei]

How so?

Perhaps you go around harming a ton of people every day but most people I know don't.

Maybe you need better friends.

Valsa do you have ANY friends? Do you ever just NOT be an internet arse and kick off ..have fun. Not be so PC? It's good. I admire you. But Jesus. Not a party girl huh?

[valsa]

ETA: Example: I live in the city and pass by homeless people several times a day. Sometimes I give them money or food...sometimes I don't. Either choice in a given situation likely does both good and/or harm. "Harm" is unavoidable.

Do you worsen their situation by your inaction?

[valsa]

Valsa do you have ANY friends? Do you ever just NOT be an internet arse and kick off ..have fun. Not be so PC? It's good. I admire you. But Jesus. Not a party girl huh?

No, not much of a party girl at all. Certainly not parties that involve harming people.

[LadyFriend]

Do you worsen their situation by your inaction?

It's impossible to predict accurately, which is the crux of the problem. If it were possible to know the impact of all of our actions, ethics would be easy!

The point is that it's impossible to live a life in which you do no harm.

[OkToBeTakei]

No, not much of a party girl at all. Certainly not parties that involve harming people.

Why so meanie. I go to parties a lot. Most parties do not involve harming anybody WTF it is generally people who like one another.What if any parties do you attend?

[OkToBeTakei]

Why so meanie. I go to parties a lot. Most parties do not involve harming anybody WTF. It is generally people who like one another.What if any parties do you attend?

[valsa]

It's impossible to predict accurately, which is the crux of the problem. If it were possible to know the impact of all of our actions, ethics would be easy!

The point is that it's impossible to live a life in which you do no harm.

I disagree. I think saying that you can't live a life of doing no harm is a cop-out, an excuse to not try.

[OkToBeTakei]

I disagree. I think saying that you can't live a life of doing no harm is a cop-out, an excuse to not try.

So you do no harm?

[valsa]

Why so meanie. I go to parties a lot. Most parties do not involve harming anybody WTF it is generally people who like one another.What if any parties do you attend?

You been partying tonight? :naughty:

I'm pretty sure you're trying to answer questions I never asked.

[valsa]

So you do no harm?

I never claimed to be a good person.

[OkToBeTakei]

You are very right :lol:

Fuck :(

But still ..stop being so not allowing live and let live.

[LadyFriend]

I disagree. I think saying that you can't live a life of doing no harm is a cop-out, an excuse to not try.

Then I have no idea what you mean by "harm" - which is what I'm trying to get at. Ethics, especially consequentialist ethics, are generally concerned with minimizing harm/suffering because of the recognition that we all necessarily cause harm by virtue of being social animals. I think it's undeniable that we all cause harm. The question is what type of "harm" you consider adequate to make someone a "bad" person. The next question is if a "bad person" can become good (given the fact that they have done, assumingly grave, harm).

[Guest Anonymous]

I do think it is impossible to live your live without doing harm. We can make sure that our trainers (sneakers?) are not made by children in a sweatshop and we can make sure that our t-shirts aren't made from cotton picked by slave labourers in Eastern Europe, but nothing can prevent that ridiculous 'Closing Doors' thing where missing the 8:30 bus means nobody is at the tube station to help someone carry their baby's pram down the stairs (insert international equivalent).

I don't necessarily believe that there are good people and bad people but I do think that Good People / Bad People is important as a concept. Saying that you "don't believe" in bad people is a really easy way of divorcing yourself from your actions. Reading yewchapel's responses in this thread, it is almost as if 'actions' is the name of an alien race that possesses your body and forces you to do things that you don't want to do. It seems like a really neat way of not taking responsibility for yourself. "I'm a neutral person, I may have done bad things but I've stopped now so that's fine".

[valsa]

You are very right :lol:

Fuck :(

But still ..stop being so not allowing live and let live.

No. This place does not exist with "live and let live" in mind. It's entire purpose is pretty much the exact opposite of that.

If you want to "live and let live", there are thousands of other websites you can be on. Frankly, one of the most annoying parts of this new "kinder and gentler FJ" is exactly that attitude. It drags FJ from being somewhere special to being unremarkable.

[valsa]

Then I have no idea what you mean by "harm" - which is what I'm trying to get at.

Which I've already answered. Here's a ridiculously simplified example-

If you see a person tumbling down a hill and don't stop them, that's not causing harm. If you push someone down a hill, that's causing harm. If you see someone tumbling down a hill and place a giant rock at the bottom for them to hit, that's causing harm.

[LadyFriend]

I do think it is impossible to live your live without doing harm. We can make sure that our trainers (sneakers?) are not made by children in a sweatshop and we can make sure that our t-shirts aren't made from cotton picked by slave labourers in Eastern Europe, but nothing can prevent that ridiculous 'Closing Doors' thing where missing the 8:30 bus means nobody is at the tube station to help someone carry their baby's pram down the stairs (insert international equivalent).

I don't necessarily believe that there are good people and bad people but I do think that Good People / Bad People is important as a concept. Saying that you "don't believe" in bad people is a really easy way of divorcing yourself from your actions. Reading yewchapel's responses in this thread, it is almost as if 'actions' is the name of an alien race that possesses your body and forces you to do things that you don't want to do. It seems like a really neat way of not taking responsibility for yourself. "I'm a neutral person, I may have done bad things but I've stopped now so that's fine".

I agree with you almost entirely, but we also have to acknowledge the harm done by the Good People/Bad People dichotomy. I think it makes it much much much easier to dehumanize people and that's a very real danger.

I also agree that people can easily shirk responsibility for specific actions by thinking, "well, I'm a good person, so..." and that is dangerous as well.

[LadyFriend]

Which I've already answered. Here's a ridiculously simplified example-

If you see a person tumbling down a hill and don't stop them, that's not causing harm. If you push someone down a hill, that's causing harm. If you see someone tumbling down a hill and place a giant rock at the bottom for them to hit, that's causing harm.

OK, but imo that's a very simplistic way of viewing human behavior. I assume you have heard of the trolley problem thought experiment. It just doesn't work.

[OkToBeTakei]

No. This place does not exist with "live and let live" in mind. It's entire purpose is pretty much the exact opposite of that.

If you want to "live and let live", there are thousands of other websites you can be on. Frankly, one of the most annoying parts of this new "kinder and gentler FJ" is exactly that attitude. It drags FJ from being somewhere special to being unremarkable.

I do agree. But the amount of Gin and fun I had tonight, forgive me. Tomorrow I will be better.

[valsa]

OK, but imo that's a very simplistic way of viewing human behavior. I assume you have heard of the trolley problem thought experiment. It just doesn't work.

Then I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

[OkToBeTakei]

No. This place does not exist with "live and let live" in mind. It's entire purpose is pretty much the exact opposite of that.

If you want to "live and let live", there are thousands of other websites you can be on. Frankly, one of the most annoying parts of this new "kinder and gentler FJ" is exactly that attitude. It drags FJ from being somewhere special to being unremarkable.

I'm better now.

Having an opinion and stating it is fine. Having an opinion and living it is also fine. Having an opinion just on an internet forum for the sake of just being contrary is not fine. It's just lying. Live and let live is what most people in the real world do to you know, live with other people. You pick your battles. Maybe you walk about all day declaring these contrary opinions to all and sundry. Fair play to you if you do.

[salex]

Since her friend is not RC, then why in the world would he care that if he were her religion, he shouldn't have sex outside of a heterosexual marriage or marry his boyfriend?

What makes these people think anyone cares about their particular dogma?

[Mela99]

Jesus: Peter, you are the rock on which I will build my church

Jesus: Didn't say jack shit about gay marriage.

[duplessis3]

I don't get why she thinks that non-religious marriage is any of her god damn business. (swears are intentional.) Why should he care what she thinks?

And all I can imagine is that the actual course of the evening was more like 15 minutes later, hugs, she says "we need to do this more often" and gets noncommittal grunts in return as her friends beat a speedy escape, while deleting her number from their cell phones. (And even if she is believing this because she is afraid of hellfire, she needs to have the decency to step up and try to keep her friends from the fiery pits.)

[FakePigtails]

Since her friend is not RC, then why in the world would he care that if he were her religion, he shouldn't have sex outside of a heterosexual marriage or marry his boyfriend?

What makes these people think anyone cares about their particular dogma?

From what I've seen they're so convinced that their way is the right and only way that it doesn't matter how much anyone cares because dammit they should care because IF ONLY they knew the "right" way . . . blah blah blah. Throw in that they believe their religious beliefs so deeply that they're no longer just religious beliefs to them but absolute world truths so to them they're not pushing dogma on anyone, just what is "right".

It's incredibly condescending and insulting. And pointless, but there's no convincing them to cut the crap and stop pushing their beliefs on others. "To each his own" is a completely foreign concept.

Every now and then I've seen it recognized that certain things they dislike are inevitable, but then it's always accompanied by lots of gnashing of teeth about how the world's being misled by Satan.