posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 02:57 AM
Lets say I belong to a group of people who believe sex with stuffed teddy bears should be legal and afforded equal civil rights.
Well right away they are not even sentient creatures. Using this analogy is ridiculous, but ill try.
Lets say this movement is huge, 500 million strong world wide.We want it to be considered morally acceptable to take our sex partner teddy
bears to dinner with us
That's a lot of people. I would say that it should go through rigorous thought among intellectuals and professionals throughout society. See what
merit we can bring to the table to justify it. What reasons do you feel there are to support equal rights for human-teddy bear relationships and or
Just like what we do for gay rights, and what we did for interracial relationships.
Why would this or that be an exception? We all need to come together and reflect on what is the most morally correct understanding...
What if it wasn't teddy bears but robots that were so life like, they are deemed like Data from Star Trek as sentient beings.
Good, that analogy is not absurd
Well same answer. We become aware of it. We think about it. We discuss it. We come to an understand and we
encourage that understanding and change society to reflect it (i.e laws, cultural awareness, etc). However whatever that understanding is. Perhaps in
this case I will be anti-robot rights. We shall see. The only connection I am making here to homosexuality however is simply that we as a society
should reflect on it and evolve our moral understanding in response to it.
The idea is to change the very definition of morality
My my. You make it sound like morality is set in stone. Well I suppose it literally has been. But if we followed stone-age morality there would be
many many many things that would be morally reprehensible to you and to me if allowed today! Morality grows, it changes. You know that and you already
and make something that's not considered moral into something that is considered moral
Slavery was morally acceptable and now it's not. I fail to understand you issue with morality being "re-defined"?
Civil Rights issues, I can see,
And others see that this is a civil rights issue. Keep in mind I am not speaking withing the scope of 'the business owner and the cake' since you
blacks should not be mistreated simply because of the color of their skin.
Gay people should not be mistreated simply because they are gay
but that's different than allowing them to change the very definition of morality itself. Even the blacks didn't seek to do that.
Clearly not the case, but maybe I am just really confused on what you mean by 're-defining'.
I am certain the civil rights movements for them were aiming to change our moral 'definitions'.