First of all, I really enjoyed this discussion so I thank you for facilitating it. Beyond that, I'm a bit torn. I've never been impressed by natural law theory because it's always seemed like a thinly-veiled attempt to justify a certain type of conservative sexual morality via very carefully chosen appeals to nature. Although I think Brian presented his case very well, I regret that he didn't do much to really dissuade me from that position. Probably the two most common flaws in any moral framework are that it's overly ad hoc or produces wildly unintuitive results in too many scenarios. I think I could argue for both flaws in NLT as presented here, but the latter seems like the bigger problem. The idea that it's impermissible to lie to, say, an SS officer to save my neighbor or myself from torture and death is, to put it mildly, problematic. To say that this is because that lie endangers _my own happiness_ is just driving nails into the coffin of this doomed theory. To put it a different way, the use of my natural power of rational analysis in its natural way results inexorably in my rejection of NLT.
I agree! I’ve been considering this all morning (having watched this yesterday) and what I came up with is that it’s a solution in search of a problem. The real “problem” with queerness is it makes these people deranged with anger or discomfort. But they realize that their feelings aren’t going to move anyone who doesn’t already agree with them, so they find a proxy. No one has any problem with “unnatural” things, since it’s pretty well a nonsensical term anyway, but if we can tie “unnaturalness” to stuff people in general don’t like and really make that connection stick, then we can smear people who’ve never done us any injury and re-marginalize them back out to the periphery far enough they don’t give me that discomfort anymore. It’s flat idiotic and poorly drawn on its face, and it’s only a mask for bigotry. As good a job as these guys did, I feel that the respondent could have taken a harder line.
Why can Brian defer to non human animals in the case of consent, but when we point to homosexual relationships among non human animals to support the “permissibility” of same sex couples, suddenly he pivots to “human” nature as being distinct in that case? I mean, we are a social species, so arguably consent is important for our flourishing.
Tons of animals also sexually assault one another all of the time and don’t care about the consent of a partner. They also participate in sexual acts that are homosexual in nature does that mean that either behavior is okay? By no means.
@@SilentTears-xn4mg I think we need to be careful about committing an appeal to nature fallacy and look instead at harm reduction - to which consent is related. I think that we can draw a distinction between behavior found in nature that is harmful and behavior that is harmless or even helpful. As humans we have a tendency to attribute moral agency even to non-human animals. But, despite there being evidence for simple moral behavior among some animal species, consent requires higher cognitive function.
I think Besong's weakest point was on the Faustian bargains, Dustin had a hypothetical example and a concrete personal example and Besong dismissed them both, as a kid I remember lying to get away from a bully and it worked. I think most people probably have some example like this. (Edit: also with the psychopath and the nose, I would say that limbs have been removed in war after extensive damage and I would guess atleast some to save unconscious patients without their consent, maybe that's applicable.)
I enjoyed this conversation and it was informative but I really wish that more of it had been spent specifically on sexuality rather than on the objections (and responses to the objections) to Natural law theory. The conversation that they had for the last 10 minutes of the conversation deserved to be more central in the discussion so it could have gone a little longer. Those 10 minutes were what I was expecting when I began watching this, and were the best of the whole 2 hours in my opinion. I just wish it had come sooner and had more time given to it.
Totally agree with your sentiments here. It was good groundwork for a future discussion, but not the discussion that was advertised. Such is the way in philosophy, but I hope Joe will organize a future discussion on the topic.
I understand the sentiment, too. It was actually intended to be a discussion of homosexuality on the basis of the Perverted Faculty Argument (PFA), and Natural Law Theory (NLT) is the basis upon which the PFA rests. I certainly could have directed them more to talk about sex and sexuality, but to be fair the two presenters had all the leeway when it came to the content of their opening statements. I specified to them in advance that it was a discussion on "the PFA and NLT".
But also, even if they started off with the PFA to begin with, Dustin's objections would have been to the NLT underlying the PFA. And they would have been the same objections canvassed in this video. So, regardless, I'm pretty sure the discussion would have gone down the trajectory that it in fact went down. If the disagreement concerns the foundations of normative ethics, ultimately that's where they're going to end up discussing. :)
@@MajestyofReason WHEW! Let's start with some definitions (I'm drawing from Hobbes Leviathan, it's not perfect but it's one of best treatises on this controversy ever written). First a RIGHT is a freedom to act or refrain without restraint (that's why we use the phrase RIGHT OF WAY in traffic law) and a LAW is a duty that compels or impedes, these are polar opposites. 1. In nature one has a right to whatever is within his power 2. Because every man in nature has absolute right to everything within his power all men are at war with every other man. 3. The ideal community for the prosperity of each and all is a state of peace. 4. To achieve peace men make covenants to release certain rights and make laws to protect those rights of the individual that promote the common good and general welfare. Heard that before? Preamble to the US Constitution. Now to the topic, we are not discussing individual sexuality in a vacuum and while Dustin's arguments may be due consideration, they are compartments of that sort of vacuum if we're looking for a standard upon which to establish equity in equal protection of individual rights by law which keep the peace in any community, and even a global community. NOW, sanity is the ability to recognize a right from a wrong (an unequity or unjust or unfair imposition of force, particularly one prohibited by the law that maintains the covenant to peace) insanity is the inability to distinguish right from wrong and maybe a result of diminished capacity which is a defense against a charge in some cases. Now, it should be obvious how I'm setting up the definition of the NLT and PFA using the language of political and legal philosophy, and this is the foundation of the US CONSTITUTION, so it carries over directly into the political and can be established in law and argued directly in court. From the recognition of the initial covenant each man within those bounds had the right to contract with other men to achieve prosperity with the recognition of perpetuity to themselves and their posterity and this may be a duty to complete the common good (for example being drafted into service in which case he is entitled to the contract of terms for that service). The common good to achieve an individual good must make possible the necessities of identity (a man's understanding of his origin, meaning, morality and destiny) integrity (the living out of that identity) and dignity (the honor and respect due that identity from the public). Now, the public has a vested interest in laws regarding individual sex due to the right to reproduce which is posterity of the state in covenant, and to secure the inheritance due the children to maintain the estate which is valuable to the state and common good. The marriage law is to protect and prosper that right of inheritance and is designed specifically for that and that alone although other personal benefits may attach. Notice the right to contract is general but the marriage law of that particular contract is for a specific purpose and because that is benefit the covenant body seeks it has no other definition. Because sex may produce children, children must be taught and the public must recognize the purpose and the boundaries of the right to sex within the boundaries of the marriage law only or the understanding of the law diminishes the capacity PFA of the sanity necessary to keep the peace. As to the marriage law NLT such that it will provide the optimum protection of right with the optimum identity integrity and dignity it should be defined as one man and one woman. Disputes are then discussed from that standard in courts of equity which seek to justify or balance other perceived rights or injuries.
Great conversation! I am biased against NLT, but I was impressed with Brian's presentation and defense of it. I think he got the better of Dustin in the conversation about teleology, but when it came to the specific examples of lying and sexuality, Dustin's skepticism seemed fairly justifiable, and Brian's examples didn't do much for me.
Good debate, wish it was longer though. Imo while i think that Brians point about teleology was valid and was more charismatic, i think that the objections that Mullins raised for NLT were pretty devastating and makes it look wholly unappealing/incorrect, especially in regards to the type of egoism NLT implores. That being said i wish Mullins would attack the ontology of the AT paradigm more as there are many ways to dismiss it, any type of nominalism, various other forms of realism and conceptualism, having a different conception of essence, nature, telos, existentialism, phenomenology, different conception of substance and soul etc would all be very good to discuss and compare as the denial of one of the foundational axioms of the AT paradigm would likely make the whole thing crumble, and the best part is that they are very objectionable. Either way good debate and Joe did very well as a moderator provoking further discussion!
Thanks for the discussion, Joe. I don’t mean to be unfair to Brian, but I was having a hard time finding much of substance in his responses to Dustin. Seemed like they were missing each other a lot. And it seemed liked Brian was appealing a lot to unintuitive moral claims/conclusions and slippery slopes. I’m going to give myself some time to chew on it, but if you’re in the mood to steel man Brian, it would be very helpful to me. Thanks for what you do.
I thought the opposite. I thought his replies were very substantial, very detailed and informative which gives the listener a lot to ponder about concerning the practice of ethics.
If it’s not due to just me missing the boat (which could certainly be the case), my issues are likely due to not sharing as many background assumptions with Brian as I do with Dustin. Joe is much more adept than I am at steelmanning, though. He’s just a natural (and well read) philosopher.
To articulate the opposite view of Mr. Brandon D, I didn't think Brian's responses were non-substantive at all. In fact, I felt at several points in the conversation, I thought Dustin missed or just didn't have an answer to Brian's questions, particular with regards to teleological explanations and powers. It seemed like the host(yourself Joe, :) ) had more of a response than what Dustin was articulating.
As a proponent of NL and having defended some version of the PFA myself I enjoyed this discussion, too. Thanks :-) Although Dustin raised some interesting objections to NL, most of them I did not find particularly strong or compelling (if someone does not see any convincing reasons for the concept of intrinsic teleology, the discussion does not get very far ;-) ) and Brian gave, at least in my opinion, mostly good responses. I think it is fair to say that NL implies some consequences that are hard to swallow for many people - especially when there is no God in the picture who secures ultimate justice and happiness in the end (on the other hand I know of no moral system which has no trouble with some hard cases). For example on a “practical level” it seems odd that I should rather die than to save my life (or even that of my family) by telling a blatant trivial lie that in the end does not "harm" anyone. But on the other hand it seems compelling to me that it is indeed always better to suffer evil than to do it - although I may be too weak to keep this up in such (extreme) circumstances and I know I fail on these issues on a daily basis... Having said this, here is a “practical objection” to the PFA (and other accounts which imply that it is inherently wrong to intentionally induce sexual arousal and orgasm outside an act which is inherently directed to procreation), I raised a few years ago in an email discussion with Alex Pruss: Suppose I accidentally have consumed a poison which gets stuck in my sperms and will cause death if I do not ejaculate in the next hour (the sperm has not lost its procreative power nor would it negatively affect a woman if I would ejaculate in her vagina). Suppose further that I am not married or my wife is not available and I cannot reach a hospital. Now, is it morally licit to masturbate in order to save my live? In my opinion this really is a difficult case for the NL proponent and it seems even the principle of totality is not applicable here, because according to NL reasoning masturbation (as well as lying to save ones own or someone others life) is an inherently wrong act. Therefore it seems to me this is a bullet the NL proponent has to bite. Even Alex did not come up with another response to this (admittedly not just a little obscure) situation besides biting the bullet. Bottom line: Get married soon and make sure you stay close to your wife ;-)
I actually have a lecture video planned on the argument from moral disagreement. I haven't made it yet, but it's on my list and will be made eventually
This discourse style is surely the future of quality education
First of all, I really enjoyed this discussion so I thank you for facilitating it. Beyond that, I'm a bit torn. I've never been impressed by natural law theory because it's always seemed like a thinly-veiled attempt to justify a certain type of conservative sexual morality via very carefully chosen appeals to nature. Although I think Brian presented his case very well, I regret that he didn't do much to really dissuade me from that position.
Probably the two most common flaws in any moral framework are that it's overly ad hoc or produces wildly unintuitive results in too many scenarios. I think I could argue for both flaws in NLT as presented here, but the latter seems like the bigger problem. The idea that it's impermissible to lie to, say, an SS officer to save my neighbor or myself from torture and death is, to put it mildly, problematic. To say that this is because that lie endangers _my own happiness_ is just driving nails into the coffin of this doomed theory.
To put it a different way, the use of my natural power of rational analysis in its natural way results inexorably in my rejection of NLT.
I agree! I’ve been considering this all morning (having watched this yesterday) and what I came up with is that it’s a solution in search of a problem.
The real “problem” with queerness is it makes these people deranged with anger or discomfort. But they realize that their feelings aren’t going to move anyone who doesn’t already agree with them, so they find a proxy.
No one has any problem with “unnatural” things, since it’s pretty well a nonsensical term anyway, but if we can tie “unnaturalness” to stuff people in general don’t like and really make that connection stick, then we can smear people who’ve never done us any injury and re-marginalize them back out to the periphery far enough they don’t give me that discomfort anymore.
It’s flat idiotic and poorly drawn on its face, and it’s only a mask for bigotry. As good a job as these guys did, I feel that the respondent could have taken a harder line.
Why can Brian defer to non human animals in the case of consent, but when we point to homosexual relationships among non human animals to support the “permissibility” of same sex couples, suddenly he pivots to “human” nature as being distinct in that case? I mean, we are a social species, so arguably consent is important for our flourishing.
Tons of animals also sexually assault one another all of the time and don’t care about the consent of a partner. They also participate in sexual acts that are homosexual in nature does that mean that either behavior is okay? By no means.
@@SilentTears-xn4mg I think we need to be careful about committing an appeal to nature fallacy and look instead at harm reduction - to which consent is related. I think that we can draw a distinction between behavior found in nature that is harmful and behavior that is harmless or even helpful.
As humans we have a tendency to attribute moral agency even to non-human animals. But, despite there being evidence for simple moral behavior among some animal species, consent requires higher cognitive function.
I think Besong's weakest point was on the Faustian bargains, Dustin had a hypothetical example and a concrete personal example and Besong dismissed them both, as a kid I remember lying to get away from a bully and it worked. I think most people probably have some example like this.
(Edit: also with the psychopath and the nose, I would say that limbs have been removed in war after extensive damage and I would guess atleast some to save unconscious patients without their consent, maybe that's applicable.)
Joe!! What did you do to your hair!? I liked it when it was longer.
hahah
It was like wearing a squirrel on my head
I enjoyed this conversation and it was informative but I really wish that more of it had been spent specifically on sexuality rather than on the objections (and responses to the objections) to Natural law theory. The conversation that they had for the last 10 minutes of the conversation deserved to be more central in the discussion so it could have gone a little longer. Those 10 minutes were what I was expecting when I began watching this, and were the best of the whole 2 hours in my opinion. I just wish it had come sooner and had more time given to it.
Totally agree with your sentiments here. It was good groundwork for a future discussion, but not the discussion that was advertised. Such is the way in philosophy, but I hope Joe will organize a future discussion on the topic.
I understand the sentiment, too. It was actually intended to be a discussion of homosexuality on the basis of the Perverted Faculty Argument (PFA), and Natural Law Theory (NLT) is the basis upon which the PFA rests. I certainly could have directed them more to talk about sex and sexuality, but to be fair the two presenters had all the leeway when it came to the content of their opening statements. I specified to them in advance that it was a discussion on "the PFA and NLT".
But also, even if they started off with the PFA to begin with, Dustin's objections would have been to the NLT underlying the PFA. And they would have been the same objections canvassed in this video. So, regardless, I'm pretty sure the discussion would have gone down the trajectory that it in fact went down. If the disagreement concerns the foundations of normative ethics, ultimately that's where they're going to end up discussing. :)
@@MajestyofReason WHEW! Let's start with some definitions (I'm drawing from Hobbes Leviathan, it's not perfect but it's one of best treatises on this controversy ever written). First a RIGHT is a freedom to act or refrain without restraint (that's why we use the phrase RIGHT OF WAY in traffic law) and a LAW is a duty that compels or impedes, these are polar opposites.
1. In nature one has a right to whatever is within his power
2. Because every man in nature has absolute right to everything within his power all men are at war with every other man.
3. The ideal community for the prosperity of each and all is a state of peace.
4. To achieve peace men make covenants to release certain rights and make laws to protect those rights of the individual that promote the common good and general welfare. Heard that before? Preamble to the US Constitution.
Now to the topic, we are not discussing individual sexuality in a vacuum and while Dustin's arguments may be due consideration, they are compartments of that sort of vacuum if we're looking for a standard upon which to establish equity in equal protection of individual rights by law which keep the peace in any community, and even a global community.
NOW, sanity is the ability to recognize a right from a wrong (an unequity or unjust or unfair imposition of force, particularly one prohibited by the law that maintains the covenant to peace) insanity is the inability to distinguish right from wrong and maybe a result of diminished capacity which is a defense against a charge in some cases.
Now, it should be obvious how I'm setting up the definition of the NLT and PFA using the language of political and legal philosophy, and this is the foundation of the US CONSTITUTION, so it carries over directly into the political and can be established in law and argued directly in court.
From the recognition of the initial covenant each man within those bounds had the right to contract with other men to achieve prosperity with the recognition of perpetuity to themselves and their posterity and this may be a duty to complete the common good (for example being drafted into service in which case he is entitled to the contract of terms for that service).
The common good to achieve an individual good must make possible the necessities of identity (a man's understanding of his origin, meaning, morality and destiny) integrity (the living out of that identity) and dignity (the honor and respect due that identity from the public).
Now, the public has a vested interest in laws regarding individual sex due to the right to reproduce which is posterity of the state in covenant, and to secure the inheritance due the children to maintain the estate which is valuable to the state and common good.
The marriage law is to protect and prosper that right of inheritance and is designed specifically for that and that alone although other personal benefits may attach. Notice the right to contract is general but the marriage law of that particular contract is for a specific purpose and because that is benefit the covenant body seeks it has no other definition.
Because sex may produce children, children must be taught and the public must recognize the purpose and the boundaries of the right to sex within the boundaries of the marriage law only or the understanding of the law diminishes the capacity PFA of the sanity necessary to keep the peace.
As to the marriage law NLT such that it will provide the optimum protection of right with the optimum identity integrity and dignity it should be defined as one man and one woman.
Disputes are then discussed from that standard in courts of equity which seek to justify or balance other perceived rights or injuries.
Great conversation! I am biased against NLT, but I was impressed with Brian's presentation and defense of it. I think he got the better of Dustin in the conversation about teleology, but when it came to the specific examples of lying and sexuality, Dustin's skepticism seemed fairly justifiable, and Brian's examples didn't do much for me.
Good debate, wish it was longer though.
Imo while i think that Brians point about teleology was valid and was more charismatic, i think that the objections that Mullins raised for NLT were pretty devastating and makes it look wholly unappealing/incorrect, especially in regards to the type of egoism NLT implores.
That being said i wish Mullins would attack the ontology of the AT paradigm more as there are many ways to dismiss it, any type of nominalism, various other forms of realism and conceptualism, having a different conception of essence, nature, telos, existentialism, phenomenology, different conception of substance and soul etc would all be very good to discuss and compare as the denial of one of the foundational axioms of the AT paradigm would likely make the whole thing crumble, and the best part is that they are very objectionable.
Either way good debate and Joe did very well as a moderator provoking further discussion!
Sorry I'm not impartial here. I think Dustin rightfully took the wind out of the idea of Natural Law Theory.
Thanks for the discussion, Joe. I don’t mean to be unfair to Brian, but I was having a hard time finding much of substance in his responses to Dustin. Seemed like they were missing each other a lot. And it seemed liked Brian was appealing a lot to unintuitive moral claims/conclusions and slippery slopes. I’m going to give myself some time to chew on it, but if you’re in the mood to steel man Brian, it would be very helpful to me. Thanks for what you do.
Thank you for your constructive feedback! I need to relax a bit, so I won't be steelmanning him for now :)
No worries, brother. Enjoy.
I thought the opposite. I thought his replies were very substantial, very detailed and informative which gives the listener a lot to ponder about concerning the practice of ethics.
If it’s not due to just me missing the boat (which could certainly be the case), my issues are likely due to not sharing as many background assumptions with Brian as I do with Dustin. Joe is much more adept than I am at steelmanning, though. He’s just a natural (and well read) philosopher.
@@brandond8211 That's completely understandable.
Great talk. Great channel.
To articulate the opposite view of Mr. Brandon D, I didn't think Brian's responses were non-substantive at all. In fact, I felt at several points in the conversation, I thought Dustin missed or just didn't have an answer to Brian's questions, particular with regards to teleological explanations and powers. It seemed like the host(yourself Joe, :) ) had more of a response than what Dustin was articulating.
Yea I thought Dustin could of did better on the teleology part of the discussion.
excellent videos joe, really appreaciate your work!
Everything is great except that you are an Arsenal fan lol
lolol #LONDONISRED
Majesty of Reason that statement is a violation to the PSR lolol jk
As a proponent of NL and having defended some version of the PFA myself I enjoyed this discussion, too. Thanks :-) Although Dustin raised some interesting objections to NL, most of them I did not find particularly strong or compelling (if someone does not see any convincing reasons for the concept of intrinsic teleology, the discussion does not get very far ;-) ) and Brian gave, at least in my opinion, mostly good responses.
I think it is fair to say that NL implies some consequences that are hard to swallow for many people - especially when there is no God in the picture who secures ultimate justice and happiness in the end (on the other hand I know of no moral system which has no trouble with some hard cases). For example on a “practical level” it seems odd that I should rather die than to save my life (or even that of my family) by telling a blatant trivial lie that in the end does not "harm" anyone. But on the other hand it seems compelling to me that it is indeed always better to suffer evil than to do it - although I may be too weak to keep this up in such (extreme) circumstances and I know I fail on these issues on a daily basis...
Having said this, here is a “practical objection” to the PFA (and other accounts which imply that it is inherently wrong to intentionally induce sexual arousal and orgasm outside an act which is inherently directed to procreation), I raised a few years ago in an email discussion with Alex Pruss: Suppose I accidentally have consumed a poison which gets stuck in my sperms and will cause death if I do not ejaculate in the next hour (the sperm has not lost its procreative power nor would it negatively affect a woman if I would ejaculate in her vagina). Suppose further that I am not married or my wife is not available and I cannot reach a hospital. Now, is it morally licit to masturbate in order to save my live? In my opinion this really is a difficult case for the NL proponent and it seems even the principle of totality is not applicable here, because according to NL reasoning masturbation (as well as lying to save ones own or someone others life) is an inherently wrong act. Therefore it seems to me this is a bullet the NL proponent has to bite. Even Alex did not come up with another response to this (admittedly not just a little obscure) situation besides biting the bullet.
Bottom line: Get married soon and make sure you stay close to your wife ;-)
It makes me happy that the conversation served you! :)
Craig Reed TCR sent me. Now I am sub nom nom nom. This comment has zero to do with the content of this video. K thanks.
will you talk about morality?
Absolutely! In due time :)
I actually have a lecture video planned on the argument from moral disagreement. I haven't made it yet, but it's on my list and will be made eventually
@@MajestyofReason nice!
Morality is a spook.
2hrs of discussion - the Bible is clear in its teaching though
This is kind of like saying "2 hrs of discussion- the math of 1+1=2 is clear though" if it were two philosophers discussing the Philosophy of Math.
@@42elliott So you disagree with the Lord your God?
@@DigitalGnosis Not everyone believes in inerrancy. Or infallibility for that matter.
@@tanner955 Jesus does
@@DigitalGnosis If you say so.