« Scuttle The Shuttle |
Main
| Another New Guy »
The Naturalistic Fallacy
...is devastated by Professor Volokh, at least with regard to homosexuality.
I've discussed this in the past as well. There, I also take issue with the notion of elevating the word "normal" as having some kind of moral or practical component.
Posted by Rand Simberg at July 14, 2003 02:48 PM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/mt-diagnostics.cgi/1443
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference
this post from
Transterrestrial Musings.
The Unnatural
Excerpt: A thought just occurred to me upon reading this discourse upon the problem with the "it's unnatural" argument against homosexuality. Eugene Volokh says that people who use this argument are actually hiding their "religious, moral, and pr...
Weblog: Too Much To Dream
Tracked: July 15, 2003 05:27 PM
Comments
Rand, what you don't get is that, ultimately, there is no "truth." Like it or not, we all have belief systems, and if you think that you can prove the naturalistic fallacy is false, particularly to someone who doesn't use "proofs" as the basis of knowledge, you're deluding yourself--go read a little Goedel.
Posted by The Raving Atheist at July 15, 2003 08:22 AM
One can prove it within the realm of logic, Raving. I said nothing about "truth."
Posted by Rand Simberg at July 15, 2003 08:52 AM
Interesting comment by RA, considering his recent battle with Steven Den Beste, in which he argued the opposite position...
Posted by Troy at July 15, 2003 09:09 AM
He's being sarcastic, paraphrasing a comment to him that I left at Jane Galt's blog post about "Brights."
Posted by Rand Simberg at July 15, 2003 10:39 AM
I see. He has problems with logic, doesn't he...
Posted by Troy at July 15, 2003 10:25 PM
Ethical statements -- including those concerning the morality of homosexuality -- are within the realm of LOGIC? Interesting. Is that how Prof. Volokh deduced the conduct of Bonomo monkeys?
Posted by The Raving Atheist at July 17, 2003 08:32 AM
Uh, bonobos (proper spelling) are apes, not monkeys. Perhaps RA ought to fact-check a bit more and rave a bit less, eh?
To directly answer your question, RA: it's certainly possible to logically prove that a particular position is inconsistent, which is what I thought Eugene was doing. But accepting that doesn't mean it somehow becomes possible to, for example, logically disprove the existence of something (especially something as ill-defined as "deity")... which is what I understand you to be claiming for yourself. Hence my statement.
Posted by Troy at July 17, 2003 01:49 PM
Raving is what he seems to do best...
Posted by Rand Simberg at July 17, 2003 03:07 PM
Post a comment