A debate in philosophy has described this quandary.
For there to be tolerance for ideals of privacy .
Acceptance of Gay marriage same sex couples gender identity, ect ect ... The entirety of the equal rights amendment, The intolerant must confirm to tolerance. And hence be intolerant to those who intolerant.
So in summation should the government regulate the privacy of the bedroom?.
@nature1970
This is an old ethical philosophy question. Your follow-up question of regulating the bedroom is not a perfect example of whether it is valid or not.
In order to see this played out, you would need to go to the more obvious and extreme examples. Then ask that question. Then it is easier to see why we are not a tolerant society of things we consider intolerant.
So, then the question would become, not if we should be tolerant in the bedroom or not. It becomes a completely different question as to whether it is good or bad for society as a whole. Etc., etc.
In other words, you are asking about absolute tolerance. One guy — I am not saying I agree completely with him — has answered it like this:
“This is a lovely paradox. If one is truly tolerant, then one must by definition be tolerant towards the intolerant, and therefore to promote a society of tolerance one must allow the intolerant to behave as their nature dictates. That would mean then that issues of intolerance based on race/colour, breeding, education, height, weight, money, etc., must be tolerated by society as a whole. Further, that those who might suffer harm as a result of intolerance would themselves need to be accepting of such intolerance in order to be tolerant themselves.
Can tolerance exist in its purest form as I have just described. Yes it can individually, yet in reality such a purity of tolerance can only fail in society as its laws are in effect intolerant of intolerance, and therefore society itself can only be intolerant regardless of the degrees of tolerance of the individuals that may exist within a society. Thus to a part of your question, it isn't tolerance of intolerance that kills tolerance, but intolerance itself that cannot allow tolerance to exist in it's purest form within a society.
As to arguments for and against intolerance, such would be made based on a society's moral frame of reference. If a society tolerates slavery, it might be able to argue that such slavery is for the greater good of the society in question. Those opposed within such a society might not be able to justify their own individual intolerance towards slavery if they cannot make a compelling argument that fits within the society's moral point of reference in order to show the society itself that intolerance of the tolerable may be necessary.
Personally, I am glad we have an intolerant society, in that it allows those of us who feel more tolerant towards others to have the freedom to do so, knowing that someone else's intolerance has protected my own right to be tolerant! ;-)”
There must be defined what is tolerable. I believe the discussion leads to the conclusion that tolerance and intolerant must coexist to have meaning such as night and day or the shadow defined the light in art.
Can we agree that sex between consenting adults is tolerable?
Without the bounds of marriage or a public definition of what love is to the individual?
That these matters should remain private a
And not directly expressed in the constitution, the constitution does not express directly that we have the right to breath Oxygen. We take this as a defined given right and needs not be so expressed
And be beyond what the government should regulate.
My opinion is that the government should not impose what is tolerable or whom one loves.
This is where the ‘tolerant’ go astray according to what they deem ‘tolerable’.
Someone has to pick and choose what is deemed ‘tolerable’. Amazingly, it is always them that get to choose and not the folks that deem that something ‘intolerable’. So, now the ones that supposedly are the tolerant ones are no longer tolerable of someone else’s opinion.
As I pointed out before, it becomes an individual tolerance and not a societal tolerance and it will never be ‘absolute tolerance’. Even the tolerant folks realize that anything cannot go in society.
It will come down to individuals ‘wanting to do what they want to do’ and ‘not having someone tell them that they cannot do something’.
So, no. You cannot get all folks to agree that something should be tolerable to them — just because someone wants it to be. To them it is ethically and morally wrong. It can also be seen as them as detrimental for society as a whole.
So, to them it becomes intolerable. Very, very few things will be ‘absolutely tolerable’. Now you can slowly wear folks down by saying it is okay and doesn’t harm anyone but the folks doing it, etc. But you cannot just convince folks to tolerate something because you want them to. That philosophy never works.
Like I said before, use a more extreme example in place of the one you used and you will see the issue with this type of philosophy.
Now you can argue it ethically or morally or from a good-for-society viewpoint. But from the absolute tolerance philosophy it will not logically hold up.
We need to define tolerances in a society by a public standard. Murder is not tolerated this is a common subject for many millennia, many laws in ancient core of conduct has expressed that this can not be tolerated.
Our laws push for general uniting families in bounds of Marriage and keeping sex with that defined state this has been traditions since archaic times of the UR scripture of ancient mesopotamia the land of Abraham and Sarah. The coneform in mesopotamia and hygliphics of Egypt both developed laws regulating bedrooms with criminal conduct in a push to stabilize an exploding population patterns.
Our government has pendulum since the 1920's of free live movement to extremes of the Christian coalition in unending what is tolerable with the defined given of sex. To whether the off spring can be eliminated when and how far along the mother has developed. To extremes that homosexual conduct sodomy is a criminal act between consenting men in Alabama.
At what point does the American people need to act to protect sex as a private matter?
See, right from the start you switch the argument by implying that what you deem tolerable must be allowed. You want this tolerated by everyone even though someone else finds it intolerable. In order to do this you just use another style of philosophy to try to convince folks.
Sure, the Constitution does not cover every situation. The forefathers could not foresee every situation that would arise.
It is human nature to want everyone to tolerate what we want tolerated, while not wanting to tolerate from them what we don’t want tolerated, etc. That is individually.
The issue becomes, as a society, what we think is for the overall good — not just allowing folks to do anything they please.
We have many laws and regulations preventing this.
In this argument I am showing two extremes in our society one where government need to regulate murder or mass killings, the gunman in buffalo as an example.
This action can not be tolerated.
However the privacy of whom one loves and the acts of consenting adults is hence should be tolerated and protections from violence given to the LGBTQ community from intolerant murderers and thugs.
There are many people that will argue they don’t need to do anything. Let it be a free-for-all — as long as the adults are of age, etc.
But, many others will say it is bad for society and will point to today’s society as an example of moral decline etc. They will argue consent has nothing to do with it at all.
Yes, the conception of a child is something everyone cannot agree on either. So, which side should be ‘forced to tolerate’ the other’s view? That is why neither of those arguments comes down to a ‘tolerant philosophy’. It always comes to other issues like morals, ethics, the good of society, etc.
Even on that one you cannot make the argument of consent or that it does not harm anyone but the person doing it, etc.
There are so very, very many disciplines in philosophy — but this is not the way to make the arguments for those issues. You will always have to sidestep the absolute tolerance view and get into other avenues.
At what time do we respect the individuals even if their beliefs are the minority in a free society?
He has a great argument to the defined traditions of male and female and the explicit expectations of a gender binary society.
To deal within the given protections that the first document to define the nation the declaration of independence discusses " the freedom for the pursuit of happiness" within that context that privacy rights were implied as regard to sex.
Well, the real extreme is that the naturalist will have a hard time with absolutes on this. Just because we want humans to be different than animals — they say we are not, so much. So, when you say right and wrong — a leg falls out from their stool right away — so to speak. On one hand they want to tolerate all sorts of things by saying their are no absolutes, then on the other hand they do have some absolutes on what they will not tolerate. Every society does NOT see murder like we do. For example, wander into the Amazon into the wrong spot and see what happens if you get killed by them. They don’t charge their own folks with murder. If you kill someone that is not part or your ‘tribe’ or wanders into your area — your own folks will charge you for murder. Were the American Indians or the Amazon Tribesman wrong? They didn’t think so.
So, you see — we want our views accepted. But do not want to accept other folk’s views. We all agree the Buffalo thing is wrong. The question becomes why? The 9/11 guys thought they were right and a lot of their folks thought they were right. Etc. But we do not think they were right at all.
We think murder is wrong and cannot be tolerated for very different reasons than your examples of stuff in the bedroom. Two very, different reasons. But from an ethical and moral standard the same reason can be used. It becomes an issue of why does society not tolerate the views of someone that thinks abortion is murder or any random bedroom things are bad for society?
That the law should not be used individual preferences .
The law is tolerable standards for greater good of society. However it shouldn't be thrusted to absolutism of the majority's view.
Absolute tolerance for all individuals
is A God view look into society, however most scriptures show an intolerances in the Divine God and mandates for compliance. , All things are given tolerances , limits. Absolute tolerance is not defined not is ideal gas in chemistry. Or the exact measurements of PI without stating pi.
The basic of human rights has been defined by the UN rhetoric. It states the freedom from the want of security. Should security be offered for those in the minority such as LGBTQ community,blacks, immigrants, ect ect .....
I am out watching the game eating and cannot hear the video now, I will try to watch at halftime. I doubt I will ever hear a new argument on it. But I will check it out in a bit.
We can ‘respect’ any individual’s opinion and actions if they don’t interfere with us individually. That is the point most people mean. Then they try to say this is the same as ‘tolerating’ something that is plainly bad for society as a whole.
Then what do you do with the folks that say this influences the young in a bad way? Do you ‘tolerate and respect’ their view, as well?
The only ideal to come as an example of absolute tolerances is earth and the universe it is suspended . itself.
it has absolutely tolerated life on this planet for nearly 1 billion years.
However others that deal with oppositional views of ideals must form tolerances and define this as what is tolerated, (accepted but not condoned.) From what behavior is intolerable. And should be defined in a corrective measures.
Smoking for example is tolerated. The harms of smoking on society could be explained as directly impacting and burdening the public health industry the harm to reproduction lung and heart tissue is irreversible,
So should a mother who is expecting be held to a criminal standard for smoking? Should smoking be made illegal due to health concerns of children?
It is by far not condoned behavior simply tolerated.
This was a code of laws 4000 years ago in Sumatra.
Among the surviving laws are these:[5]
If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.
If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.
If a man commits a kidnapping, he is to be imprisoned and pay 15 shekels of silver.
If a slave marries a slave, and that slave is set free, he does not leave the household.[1]
If a slave marries a native [i.e. free] person, he/she is to hand the firstborn son over to his owner.
If a man violates the right of another and deflowers the virgin wife of a young man, they shall kill that male.
If the wife of a man followed after another man and he slept with her, they shall slay that woman, but that male shall be set free. [§4 in some translations]
If a man proceeded by force, and deflowered the virgin female slave of another man, that man must pay five shekels of silver. (5)
If a man divorces his first-time wife, he shall pay (her) one mina of silver. (6)
If it is a (former) widow whom he divorces, he shall pay (her) half a mina of silver. (7)
If the man had slept with the widow without there having been any marriage contract, he need not pay any silver. (8)
If a man is accused of sorcery [translation disputed], he must undergo ordeal by water; if he is proven innocent, his accuser must pay 3 shekels. (10)[6]
If a man accused the wife of a man of adultery, and the river ordeal proved her innocent, then the man who had accused her must pay one-third of a mina of silver. (11)
If a prospective son-in-law enters the house of his prospective father-in-law, but his father-in-law later gives his daughter to another man, the father-in-law shall return to the rejected son-in-law twofold the amount of bridal presents he had brought. (12)
If [text destroyed], he shall weigh and deliver to him 2 shekels of silver.
If a slave escapes from the city limits, and someone returns him, the owner shall pay two shekels to the one who returned him. (14)
If a man knocks out the eye of another man, he shall weigh out half a mina of silver. (15)
If a man has cut off another man's foot, he is to pay ten shekels. (16)
If a man, in the course of a scuffle, smashed the limb of another man with a club, he shall pay one mina of silver. (17)
Ect ect.
How does this poor slave holding ancient nation have any reflection in conduct do to intolerances in conduct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu
The place is now devestated by allied invasion of Iraq.
Land of UR.....
And the is from Iraq find any of these tablets they break them for infringing on their quaoran.
"No gay marriage in itself does not justify incest marriage per se. Both are quite different. However reasons why gay marriage is justified may apply even to incest.
For example in Obergefell v. Hodges -
"The Court listed four distinct reasons why the fundamental right to marry applies to same-sex couples.
First, "the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy."
Second, "the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals," a principle applying equally to same-sex couples.
Third, the fundamental right to marry "safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education"; as same-sex couples have children and families, they are deserving of this safeguard—though the right to marry in the United States has never been conditioned on procreation.
Fourth, and lastly, "marriage is a keystone of our social order," and "[t]here is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle"; consequently, preventing same-sex couples from marrying puts them at odds with society, denies them countless benefits of marriage, and introduces instability into their relationships for no justifiable reason.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges#Majority_opinion)
These are also commonly given justifications by gay rights activists. Incest marriage satisfies all these criteria.
Although court opinion in itself is not a best philosophical foundation, I think but it is most popular one."
</
For example, there is something to be said with this:
"What is wrong with the reasoning is that you blurred the moral claim for homosexuality and the legal claims on gay marriage.
i.e. homsexuality is morally "allowed on the ground that":
and gay marriage is being legalised "on the ground that":
This should help you work out what is being claimed in the legal decision above."
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
