Should it be illegal for other people to tell others what they can and can not do with their body ?

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
Subjective judgment can be skewed by normativity, which is cultural.

I agree with this. I would add that all judgement is subjective.

People from different cultures have made different judgements on these issues.

The rest of what you said is absolutist nonsense.

Judgment is subjective, but cause-and-effect, and thus harm, is objective.

In other words, objective reality happens and then people have different opinions about it; but the opinions don't change how objective reality is caused and what effects it has.

Many people have difficulty distinguishing between objective reality and subjectivity. Often people mistake true opinions about objective reality as being more than subjective, and they assume that if something is subjective, it is automatically relative.

Truth is subjective, but it isn't relative. 2+2=4 is understood subjectively, but it is not relative because 2+2 cannot = 5, for example.

Likewise, you may not believe subjectively that smoking will cause cancer, but cell mutation doesn't require that you believe in it to occur.

Similarly, sex and drugs trigger intense hormones that operate beyond subjectivity to affect it; so there is a biological reality to addiction that goes beyond subjectivity itself.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

livinglava wrote:
Cannabis and prostitution are examples of borderline-normal practices that are pushed toward normalcy by comparing them with other, more normalized drugs and exploitation.

You mean like alcohol and non-procreative sex?

I guess so. What's your point?

I wanted to be clear as to what you were referring to.

livinglava wrote:

Quote:
What are higher pleasures,

Pleasures that cause/promote less harm.

Which ones are those?

livinglava wrote:

Quote:

and why should culture be progressing towards them?

The same reason culture progressed beyond gladiator battles and public hangings.

So, alcohol and non-procreative sex are pleasures equatable to gladiator battles and public hangings?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

livinglava wrote:

Quote:
What are higher pleasures,

Pleasures that cause/promote less harm.

Which ones are those?

You can analyze them on a case-by-case basis. Video games and movies do less harm in some ways, but they have arguably negative psycho-social effects in others.

Every pleasurable activity has consequences, harms and benefits, but they are not all equally harmful and/or beneficial; so I think you could say that those that are less harmful and/or more beneficial are higher/better pleasures than those that cause/promote more harm/detriment in various ways.

Quote:

livinglava wrote:
Quote:

and why should culture be progressing towards them?

The same reason culture progressed beyond gladiator battles and public hangings.

So, alcohol and non-procreative sex are pleasures equatable to gladiator battles and public hangings?

They are pretty rough activities if you compare them with more subtle drugs and social activities, yes.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

I think you are confusing objective facts with subjective opinions.

- A fact is something that is testable. I can show you that 2 + 2 = 4 on one hand. It is objective because whoever does the test will come up with the same answer.

- An opinion is something that is a matter of personal belief, or judgement. If I say 4 cookies is too much to eat for dessert... there is no way to test what is "too much". It is my opinion that 3 cookies is the most that should be eaten. My daughter has a different judgement.

Where you get confused... is that you make a jump from carefully selected facts to an opinion, and then you think that because your facts are correct then you opinion is correct. It doesn't work this way, another person will base their different opinion on a different set of facts that are equally correct.

You look at sex as something dangerous. Your facts are correct... people do get sexually transmitted diseases. And there are people who have obsessions based around sex. Your disdain for sex is based on a value judgement. That you have selected facts to back it up doesn't make it any less subjective.

I look at sex as something pleasurable. My facts are also correct... people form close bonds in sexual relationships. It is a fact that most people are sexually active and live happy productive lives with good jobs interesting hobbies and healthy families. My love for sex is based on a a value judgement. Lying naked, skin to skin, with a lover is something I find deeply enjoyable. That I have selected facts to support this pleasure doesn't make it any less subjective.

The same is true for any value judgment. Is airplane travel justified? Is Country music horrible? Is God dead? These are all opinions... you can come up with facts, but it is the leap from fact to subjective judgment that brings us to our system of beliefs.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

- An opinion is something that is a matter of personal belief, or judgement. If I say 4 cookies is too much to eat for dessert... there is no way to test what is "too much". It is my opinion that 3 cookies is the most that should be eaten. My daughter has a different judgement.

There are objective reasons why a certain amount of sugar is too much or not enough. There can be a lot of different hypotheses/theories about how to analyze the effects of sugar on the body/mind because there is so much complexity in the physiology/psychology of dietary choices, patterns, habits, desire/appetite, etc.

Quote:

Where you get confused... is that you make a jump from carefully selected facts to an opinion, and then you think that because your facts are correct then you opinion is correct. It doesn't work this way, another person will base their different opinion on a different set of facts that are equally correct.

I don't assume I am necessarily right. I just think I am. You assume I am incontrovertibly convinced that what I think is right must be right and that I ignore reasoning that defies my current conclusions. That's not true, but in your world doubt is an opening for pushing your own views/values, which are biased toward pleasure, fun, and risk-taking and biased against risk-avoidance/minimization as you don't see the possibility of happiness in those.

Quote:

You look at sex as something dangerous. Your facts are correct... people do get sexually transmitted diseases. And there are people who have obsessions based around sex. Your disdain for sex is based on a value judgement. That you have selected facts to back it up doesn't make it any less subjective.

Bodily contact is dangerous and usually unnecessary. It is not difficult to have a happy life devoid of bodily contact with other people and/or animals. Even so, some forms of bodily contact are more intense and risky than others. Sexual contact is one of the more intense and risky, and so many other choices for bodily contact would be better than sexual contact for people who cannot avoid bodily contact altogether.

Quote:

I look at sex as something pleasurable. My facts are also correct... people form close bonds in sexual relationships. It is a fact that most people are sexually active and live happy productive lives with good jobs interesting hobbies and healthy families. My love for sex is based on a a value judgement. Lying naked, skin to skin, with a lover is something I find deeply enjoyable. That I have selected facts to support this pleasure doesn't make it any less subjective.

Sex is a drug. A pimp-prostitute network is a drug-dealing network. A prostitute is a victim because her/his body is inseparable from the drug being trafficked/sold. If other recreational drugs were derived from human bodies as well, it would be pose similar problems and be similarly disturbing.

Quote:

The same is true for any value judgment. Is airplane travel justified? Is Country music horrible? Is God dead? These are all opinions... you can come up with facts, but it is the leap from fact to subjective judgment that brings us to our system of beliefs.

You can't justify airplane travel generally, but you can look at specific reasons/situations it might be justified, and then consider what it takes to maintain the economy needed to sustain an air traffic system suitable for accommodating the needs of justified air travel.

On the other hand, you could also consider how surface transit could be better and whether the time saved by flying is really worth the additional economic and environmental costs, not to mention the safety risks of flying.

Country music, like all forms of music, can be evaluated for its quality by those who appreciate it; and a certain aspect may be more-or-less objectively good, e.g. the instruments are in tune and the rhythm is in time, the vocals are well-performed, lyrics well-written, etc. That doesn't mean everyone will like it, but liking/disliking is subjective regardless of the quality of a given piece of music/art.

God is not dead, though some people are dead in their hearts/minds to God. The capacity to awaken to God is latent in the human spirit. It wouldn't be possible, for example, for humans to biology evolve to the point of being incapable of experiencing God.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

You are missing the point Lava.

I pointed out that you are confusing subjective opinions with objective facts. You seem to think that if you can point to a couple of facts... and then make a leap to a value judgement, your judgment is correct if the facts are correct.

It doesn't work that way. Once you make a value judgement, it is subjective by definition.

1. Processed sugar causes hormones to be released, activates pleasure receptors in the brain, and is directly related to deadly diseases. This a fact.

2. Processed sugar is a drug. This is an emotional outburst that communicates a value judgement that depends on an definition of "drug" that most people wouldn't accept.

3. People who sell candy are drug dealers. This is a rather ridiculous comparison expressing an exaggerated opinion

You are jumping from #1; which is a fact (meaning it is testable and well-defined) to #3; which depends on your definitions of drug and drug dealer and expresses your own values rather than any testable facts.

Just because you started with an objective fact doesn't mean the giant mental leaps you are taking to get to your conclusion are objective.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

Bodily contact is dangerous and usually unnecessary. It is not difficult to have a happy life devoid of bodily contact with other people and/or animals. Even so, some forms of bodily contact are more intense and risky than others. Sexual contact is one of the more intense and risky, and so many other choices for bodily contact would be better than sexual contact for people who cannot avoid bodily contact altogether.

I think most psychologists would disagree. Physical touch is essential to humans, starting in infancy. To not allow body contact is detrimental to psychological well being and other health benefits. Granted, the risky sexual behavior you're talking about can lead to some form of unhappiness but to deny any human touch isn't beneficial at all.

1 Reply

@Methen,

Methen wrote:

It has always been my belief that No human being has the right to tell another human being what they can or can not do with their own body regardless of age or gender, I may not agree with what they want to do,But it should always be their final decision

This the opening premise for this conversation ignores the facts that we already have numerous laws limiting things that people do with their bodies, many of which are treated as similar criminal matters. An adult male who has sexual relations with an underage girl, can, under some conditions, be tried and imprisoned for criminal rape. The inflicting of physical violence on another except in cases of self-defense is generally treaded as a felony crime.

For many years in this country the law recognized the personhood of unborn children in their mother's wombs: as a consequence the murder of a pregnant women was often treated as a double homicide, and strict limits were placed on the performance of abortions. Now a new principle is put forward, largely in advocacy of the unrestricted availability of abortion, namely the one above in the propositional opening of this thread. Both of the above ideas are, arguably, principles, worthy of serious consideration, under our law. It is possible to create a synthesis of the two involving the recognition of the survivability of the unborn child late in a pregnancy, while , at the same time limiting the law's many intrusions on the principle of individual autonomy with respect to their bodies. However, in a highly polarized dispute such a synthesis appears impossible. We are left with the rather absurd "conflict" of opposing propositions or "principles" used by advocates to defend otherwise untenable legal positions.

0 Replies

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

livinglava wrote:
Bodily contact is dangerous and usually unnecessary. It is not difficult to have a happy life devoid of bodily contact with other people and/or animals. Even so, some forms of bodily contact are more intense and risky than others. Sexual contact is one of the more intense and risky, and so many other choices for bodily contact would be better than sexual contact for people who cannot avoid bodily contact altogether.

I think most psychologists would disagree. Physical touch is essential to humans, starting in infancy. To not allow body contact is detrimental to psychological well being and other health benefits. Granted, the risky sexual behavior you're talking about can lead to some form of unhappiness but to deny any human touch isn't beneficial at all.

The point is that we (should) develop toward less risky/harmful and intense forms of social interaction and play as we mature.

0 Replies

Should it be illegal for other people to tell others what they can and can not do with their body ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know