"Joe Millionaire" finalist starred in bondage and fetish flicks

[Zero]

What a sexy naked foot, excuse me while i go to the bathroom to... wash my hands.

[Sirotnikov]

Actually I find that picture disturbing since the foot appears to be of an infant. Thus its worshipping is in my eyes equal to child pornography.

While I've enjoyed my share of fetish pics ( ) I think that children shouldn't be in them.

As for Agathon - I think you're an uptight moralist.

There is no such thing as moral excellence, and if there was, there is no reason on earth why liking feet, tickling, bondage or anal sex should cause anyone to be less morally excellent.

Moral Excellency such as what you speak of, sounds to me like anachronist victorian thinking.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

As for Agathon - I think you're an uptight moralist.

You think so? Well I'm convinced. Yeah right.

There is no such thing as moral excellence, and if there was, there is no reason on earth why liking feet, tickling, bondage or anal sex should cause anyone to be less morally excellent.

Should we just take your word for it. I suppose you think that people who contradict others without reasons should always be believed.

Are you saying that there is no such thing as doing better or worse in a human life? If so you seem to be on thin ice. Do you think someone spending their life as an alcoholic or drug addict is a good for them, even if they think so?

That's a bizarre claim, akin to saying that eating nothing but donuts is good for me if I think it is.

Moral Excellency such as what you speak of, sounds to me like anachronist victorian thinking.

It does and it doesn't. One can agree with these supposed Victorians that morality is about improving your character and making yourself better off without agreeing on what exactly this entails. For example, one could disagree with them about sex being bad for you or about religious practice.

You are on thin ice here. Unless you have read or are familiar with the doctrines expressed in Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, the dialogues of Plato, and other pre Christian moral theories, I'd respectfully suggest that you don't know what you're talking about. Calling any one of these "Victorian" would be to display complete and utter ignorance.

Anyway, John Stuart Mill, who is a popular exponent of the "live and let live" school (read: "On Liberty") happened to be, you've guessed it, a Victorian gentleman.

[Sirotnikov]

Are you saying that there is no such thing as doing better or worse in a human life? If so you seem to be on thin ice. Do you think someone spending their life as an alcoholic or drug addict is a good for them, even if they think so?

I think that someone who spends their life as an alcoholic, hurts himself, his family and his sorrounding by the results of him being an alcoholic (booze money, bad temper, bad health)

A person who enjoys a sexual fetish, is doing absolutely nothing wrong to anyone.


As for victorian thinking - it is a popular termin refering to the spirit of your thoughts, as if one sexual habit can turn a person's character into a 'bad' one. Fetishes, masturbation, sexual desires and so on, were believed to lead to waste of one's life and so forth.

Moral excellancy is, let's say, helping people, helping society. Not whether you like to lick feet in your spare time.


If you think that your invitation to an academic pissing contest is scaring me, then it's not. I've read quite a share of articles and literature with regards to morality, ethics and such. I've also taken philosophy and ethics classes in school.

I do admit though, that I have never actually read the original source books, but always stuck to books discussing them, since such a book could give me an overview of several views at once.

But if you really expect to have such a discussion here, name me the books and I shall read them.

As for the live and let live school, I'm not well aware of when it was founded, but I did seem to have the notion that it wasn't exactly the popular one until recently.

[Ben Kenobi]

Moral excellancy is, let's say, helping people, helping society. Not whether you like to lick feet in your spare time.

-Sirotnikov

Not quite. Morality is not limited to what you do with other people, but also how you make do with your own life, your own conduct as it would affect you, and not everyone else.

In short the object of morality is not merely others, but also yourself.

From a Christian perspective, or from Virtue ethics, the key is moderation in all things, and to excess in none. The sense is making the best use of the time available to you here on Earth.

However, where Christians, and the Greeks part company is the content of these ethics, what it is that makes a moral life.

(If I've distorted, please correct Agathon.)

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

I think that someone who spends their life as an alcoholic, hurts himself, his family and his sorrounding by the results of him being an alcoholic (booze money, bad temper, bad health)

Agreed.

A person who enjoys a sexual fetish, is doing absolutely nothing wrong to anyone.

Agreed. But I think he is making himself worse off. Of course this depends on the fetish; but I'll assume you'll agree with me that there is something seriously wrong with a necrophiliac.

In any case, I'm not saying that all fetishes should be illegal, because I don't think that all immoral acts should be illegal (it just tends to make things worse if you do this). But this doesn't stop me saying that they are immoral.

As for victorian thinking - it is a popular termin refering to the spirit of your thoughts, as if one sexual habit can turn a person's character into a 'bad' one. Fetishes, masturbation, sexual desires and so on, were believed to lead to waste of one's life and so forth.

Isn't this sometimes true? Not to the extent that the "Victorians" thought, of course; but what about sex addicts? Look at the trouble Clinton's womanising did to him.

Moral excellancy is, let's say, helping people, helping society. Not whether you like to lick feet in your spare time.

That assumes that the Aristotelian conception of morality is false. I think you would have trouble justifying some of your beliefs about child pornography.

If you think that your invitation to an academic pissing contest is scaring me, then it's not. I've read quite a share of articles and literature with regards to morality, ethics and such. I've also taken philosophy and ethics classes in school.

I don't mean to scare you at all - I'm just pointing out that you seem to be making judgements that indicate you know nothing about these things. I happen to do, since it is my job to teach philosophy and ethics classes. This doesn't mean I claim absolute knowledge about these things, but it does mean that I know way more than most people about them. I'm not saying this to brag, but so that if you choose to reply you have a reasonable indication of the level of response that would be adequate.

I do admit though, that I have never actually read the original source books, but always stuck to books discussing them, since such a book could give me an overview of several views at once.

I have read these books. Indeed I have read a large chunk of them in the original language (which helps a great deal since most translations are not too good).

But if you really expect to have such a discussion here, name me the books and I shall read them.

Don't read them just to argue with me. You can read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics if you like, but if you want a general view of Ancient moral theory you could read "The Morality of Happiness" by Julia Annas.

As for the live and let live school, I'm not well aware of when it was founded, but I did seem to have the notion that it wasn't exactly the popular one until recently.

I'm sorry if I came over like an a**hole, but I'll be honest with you. I used to believe that the "live and let live" people were right. However, when I thought about issues like pornography (esp. child porn) I found that it wasn't sufficient to capture what I thought was bad about these things. Nor is it sufficient to capture large swathes of what people ordinarily think about these matters. That's why I no longer buy it. I also think it is partly a hangover from religious conceptions of morality which I reject utterly based on the fact that we cannot know that a god or gods exist.

I certainly don't advocate a wholesale return to puritanism, rather something new, or a new take on an old idea - that morality is about the welfare of human beings - about what makes lives like yours and mine go well rather than badly. This seems to me to be something we should all take an interest in even though we shouldn't assume that there will be one answer as to what counts as a good life (there may be some kinds of life what just won't do even if there are many diverse sorts that will).

[Agathon]

Originally posted by obiwan18

-Sirotnikov

Not quite. Morality is not limited to what you do with other people, but also how you make do with your own life, your own conduct as it would affect you, and not everyone else.

In short the object of morality is not merely others, but also yourself.

From a Christian perspective, or from Virtue ethics, the key is moderation in all things, and to excess in none. The sense is making the best use of the time available to you here on Earth.

However, where Christians, and the Greeks part company is the content of these ethics, what it is that makes a moral life.

(If I've distorted, please correct Agathon.)

You've got me obiwan - I'm a non-christian virtue ethicist and I follow the Aristotelian model in form but not necessarily in content (I detest slavery).

Doh! - I am now exposed for all to see.

[MrBaggins]

(A rehash of something I've said before... but funnily enough... it applies again)

Agathon>

Who made you the purveyor of moral standards all of a sudden?

How EXACTLY is a consensual fetish harmful?

As far as what you've said...

The validity of your arguement ends at the boundary of your flesh. A totality of agreement by 'society' to your arguement, might make it valid, but there is none. Certainly not one that you could prove... and that would only make it as valid as for that proportion of society... and not a self-evident fact. "Proof", "fact and "truth" are possible only in the absolute sphere of mathematics.

MrBaggins

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
(A rehash of something I've said before... but funnily enough... it applies again)

Agathon>

Who made you the purveyor of moral standards all of a sudden?

How EXACTLY is a consensual fetish harmful?

As far as what you've said...

The validity of your arguement ends at the boundary of your flesh. A totality of agreement by 'society' to your arguement, might make it valid, but there is none. Certainly not one that you could prove... and that would only make it as valid as for that proportion of society... and not a self-evident fact. "Proof", "fact and "truth" are possible only in the absolute sphere of mathematics.

MrBaggins

This is assertion rather than argument. Read my posts again (and obiwan's) and you will find your second question answered.

What makes it worse is that if you really believe what you say in the last paragraph you must believe that your own predjuices about the "consensual" ends at the boundary of your flesh. So we are free to do to you whatever we like, for you can find no objectively binding prohibition to it.

So there.

And here's another one, since your claim is that "'proof', 'fact' and 'truth' are possible only in absolute mathematics" and this itself is not a mathematical statement, it therefore cannot be proved if it really is true - so on what basis do you claim it to be true?

Har Har Har.

[Zero]

Watching Iron chef is morally wrong. Just my humble opinion on morality.

[Agathon]

I've never watched it. Is it that bad?

[Ben Kenobi]

You've got me obiwan - I'm a non-christian virtue ethicist and I follow the Aristotelian model in form but not necessarily in content (I detest slavery).

Perchance a thread topic in the future?

I'll see if I can't find something meaty.

Besides, you weren't hiding very well anyways.

[MrBaggins]

Agathon drivelled
*snip*

1+1=2

everything else is personal opinion. I am writing an opinion right now. That opinion is shared by the entirety of the scientific community.

Proofs are possible in mathematics. They are universal.

Everything else is an opinion. Even the meaning behind English words are merely opinion... they are however widely and commonly held beliefs, and not absolute definitions.

What makes your morality universal, and hence applicable to another?

'Proving' my opinion is an opinion DOES NOT prove that your opinion is fact. Proof is absolute confirmation of the case in point, not the disproof of an arguement.

MrBaggins

[Zero]

Originally posted by Agathon
I've never watched it. Is it that bad?

No, I was hoping to get on Tassadar's bad side (He's crazy about it)

[JohnT]

Not that I want to jerk this thread back to the mundane and worldly, but haven't any of y'all given consideration that this "news" was released by Fox, that they knew this chick was a porn star and designed it from the start that it would come out, at this stage, to drive up interest.

It is quite likely that they knew she was a porn star before she "won" whatever trial she had to go through to be one of the final 12 or whatever. It is nigh on certain that they knew before this came out - private investigators are a dime a dozen and are commonly used by companies to learn about employees.