Does This "Disprove" Homosexuality?

[Heresson]

Scenario: a gay male couple and a woman (a total of THREE people) are on an island at the same time. Suddenly everyone else in the world disappears, leaving only the three island-goers.

Question - if you are one of the gay guys, and you are really attracted to your gay partner, and don't really like or feel anything for the girl, what do you do?

A - Stay true and gay, and only "date", WINK WINK, your male friend, and sexually avoid the female,

--OR--

B - Have "relations" WINK WINK with the female, even though you don't want to, in the interests of preserving the species.

[Az]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Why? I thought you would advocate making people happy now?

No people, no happiness.

[Heresson]

No people, no sadness

[Az]

Originally posted by Heresson
No people, no sadness

The utility function is still much lower with no people whatsoever existing.

[loinburger]

The utility function is nonsense when applied to a world without people.

And what does all of this have to do with Harrison Ford? I didn't quite follow that part in the OP.

[Whaleboy]

No people, no happiness.

But there is utility now, where there are people, which is not necessarily related to the future utility of people in the future. By not having children, you are not denying existence to people since you and your contemporaries still exist, so utility applies there, and far more so since it is a question of definite free will, not possible determinism.

[Az]

But there is utility now, where there are people, which is not necessarily related to the future utility of people in the future. By not having children, you are not denying existence to people since you and your contemporaries still exist, so utility applies there, and far more so since it is a question of definite free will, not possible determinism.

This is shoddy logic. The fact that it didn't happen yet, doesn't mean that it's not, or less important. By the same logic, we shouldn't fight greenhouse gases (after all, we don't know for sure, it's just a theory, a good one), and generally shouldn't give a flying toss about future generations. Yes, I am aware that the utility in question is NOW, and is a certain loss of utility, however, a gain in utility that is immense in comparison is possible, and the chances that this gain will occur are much higher than the difference between the utility functions.

It's like betting 5 bucks for a 1/100 chance to win a million, a great bet, and the fact that it's not certain, or even far from certain doesn't reduce it's ethical value.

Nothing in life is 100% certain. Gay people may find out that they are really bi-sexual, and were forced into predefined categories, etc.
You might say that this is a much slimmer chance than the chance have humanity thrive once again, but then it becomes a question of quantitative difference, and as I've shown, in terms of numbers, it's solid ethical decision-making.

[Az]

The utility function is nonsense when applied to a world without people

well, no. It just equals zero.

[Whaleboy]

This is shoddy logic. The fact that it didn't happen yet, doesn't mean that it's not, or less important.

That is shoddy logic. You need to elaborate.

By the same logic, we shouldn't fight greenhouse gases (after all, we don't know for sure, it's just a theory, a good one)

It's not a question of "shouldn't" it's a question instead of the pressing need of the alternatives in relationship to that. Is there a better pressing need than reducing greenhouse gases in relationship to doing so? We benefit by continuing to produce them in the short term but are those benefits more fundamental than the benefits of not doing so, assuming the same timeframe? No! Given a different time frame you just in this case weigh up the utility of both actions, but given the situation as previously described, the survival of the human race is irrelevant.

In this example, the utility of benefiting yourself now outweighs that of a hypothetical future with no specific end, unlike reducing greenhouse gas to the end of stopping global warming.

generally shouldn't give a flying toss about future generations

Strawman, as I said before it is simply a question of the hierarchy of needs. Where you have no aim except survival, or no discernable society to function within, the survival of that society is irrelevant. Given a larger number of people your sexuality is irrelevant to the survival anyway!

a gain in utility that is immense in comparison is possible,

By that logic we should have as many children as possible given a high probability that they will have a happy life. That is bad consequential reasoning, even for you, since you ignore the reasons why we dont! One does not have children to the end of preserving the human race, or an altruistic gain in utility. The relevant issue here is personal utility, whereby sexual realisation or survival in the two respective contexts at work here serve that better.

It's like betting 5 bucks for a 1/100 chance to win a million, a great bet, and the fact that it's not certain, or even far from certain doesn't reduce it's ethical value.

See above.

Nothing in life is 100% certain. Gay people may find out that they are really bi-sexual, and were forced into predefined categories, etc.

And you are saying taht decisions in the present shuold be taken on the basis of that uncertainty, even though in the present you know them to be gay? Someone needs to read Husserl and Camus .

You might say that this is a much slimmer chance than the chance have humanity thrive once again, but then it becomes a question of quantitative difference, and as I've shown, in terms of numbers, it's solid ethical decision-making.

I disagree, since you assume the preservation of the human race to be an ethical end, yet you fail to show me how. It seems self-evident that the welfare and utility of those currently living is an ethical concern but taking decisions SOLELY on the basis of the preservation of a hypothetical seems to wreak of informal fallacy.

[Whaleboy]

...furthermore you talk about utility but you fail to clarify. There are numerous forms of utilitarianism, perhaps you could tell me to which you subscribe or are best represented by?

[Az]

It seems that our differences lie in a single passage, and from that, everything else follows. And that passage, is to me.

[q]
It's not a question of "shouldn't" it's a question instead of the pressing need of the alternatives in relationship to that.
Is there a better pressing need than reducing greenhouse gases in relationship to doing so? We benefit by continuing to produce them in the short term but are those benefits more fundamental than the benefits of not doing so, assuming the same timeframe? No!
Are the benefits of having the freedom to not reproduce (due to whatever reason)
Given a different time frame you just in this case weigh up the utility of both actions, but given the situation as previously described, the survival of the human race is irrelevant.
[q]

In this example, the utility of benefiting yourself now outweighs that of a hypothetical future with no specific end, unlike reducing greenhouse gas to the end of stopping global warming.

You haven't shown me any difference.... maybe it's up there, but I guess my english isn't good enough to understand it or something.

[Last Conformist]

Whichever sort is least in favour of liberal nutcases like Wiglaf. He'll suggest outlawing God, mon and apple pie next.

[Whaleboy]

You haven't shown me any difference.... maybe it's up there, but I guess my english isn't good enough to understand it or something.

I won't go over it again but think in terms of the hierarchy of needs, temporal existentialism / buddhist non-permanence and conscience and cognitive relativism. You should be able to deduce my position from those. PM me if you want to continue (and I do via PM), I tire of threadjacks .

Whichever sort is least in favour of liberal nutcases like Wiglaf. He'll suggest outlawing God, mon and apple pie next.

I question his liberalism.

[Az]

I won't go over it again but think in terms of the hierarchy of needs, temporal existentialism / buddhist non-permanence and conscience and cognitive relativism. You should be able to deduce my position from those. PM me if you want to continue (and I do via PM), I tire of threadjacks

I'll be back in 10 minutes, let's talk on apolyton IRC then. ok?

Btw, I am a vanilla utilitarian. purely the maximum of the utility function is what interests me.

[Whaleboy]

I'll be back in 10 minutes, let's talk on apolyton IRC then. ok?

Apolyton IRC doesn't work for me I cant get java to install, I'll pm you my email now if you want, gmail is perfect for this sort of thing (alas no more invites ).