Homosexuality and Objectivism

[edonate]

I have a question about homosexuality that I think may be pre-emotion in the chain. One barometer I personally use to determine the appropriateness of an idea is whether it holds in the extreme cases of its application. Homosexuality is one that has me going back and forth because at the state of the conversation where it is I don't see any problems with it.

My question is, if there were a colony of humans on a desert island and they were all homosexuals would/could they survive? My response would be no, because of the reproduction aspect of it. Of course, I'm assuming here that the people in the colony would refuse to have sex with the opposite sex, and I'm ignoring the parenthood of the individuals. When I look at this way it seems to me that its more like a genetic mutation, (a sustainable one because its occurrence isn't common enough to eventually eradicate the species), than a preference.

In that sense, if homosexuality has genetic roots, how is it any different than albinism? In that sense, is it proper to decide on the morality of homosexuality when the individual doesn't have a choice?

I've read that homosexuality can be rooted in either nature, nurture or both. Am I right to understand that the conversation pertains only to the cases of nurture-spurred homosexuality? How does it work when its a combination or nurture and nature?

[Reidy]

Even if they couldn't survive, it would be a very stylish and au courant colony while it lasted.

If you had both men and women you could use artificial insemination. Human cloning is going to be along one of these days (within twenty years, I'd guess), and then you wouldn't even need both sexes.

Such a place would probably draw immigrants, so that the issue wouldn't even come up. Imagine the scene at ports of entry. "Have I anything to declare? [Pointing to a pile of 6 bags] That's hair care. [6 more] That's skin care, and the packing crate is Judy Garland CDs. My wardrobe is coming on a separate plane, and while I'm here, this waiting room is tacky. I'm glad Joan Crawford didn't live to see it."

If you believe that homosexuality is immoral, as Rand did, it couldn't be nature, and nurture wouldn't be sufficient. It would have to be a result of choice, either pure choice or willing acceptance of what nurture gave you.

[tjohnson]

On a species level it is not pathological for a percentage of the population to be non-reproductive, provided the remaining ones can reproduce enough for survival. This obviously is not a problem with humans who are reproducing very well thank you. Is it moral? I think that's irrelevant. Morals are for religion, it's old school.

[Selene]

On a species level it is not pathological for a percentage of the population to be non-reproductive, provided the remaining ones can reproduce enough for survival. This obviously is not a problem with humans who are reproducing very well thank you. Is it moral? I think that's irrelevant. Morals are for religion, it's old school.

"Morals are for religion, it's old school."

?????????

I don't see a satiric grin, so that would mean you actually mean that statement?

[Darrell Hougen]

I've read that homosexuality can be rooted in either nature, nurture or both. Am I right to understand that the conversation pertains only to the cases of nurture-spurred homosexuality? How does it work when its a combination or nurture and nature?

The entire nature versus nurture controversy rests on a logical fallacy, namely a false dichotomy. Nature and nurture are not the only options. People have the ability to choose. They are capable of choosing their values which, in turn, determines their emotional responses and consequent actions.

It is true that nature and nurture both influence the way that a person behaves, but they do not control the way that a person behaves. The influences of nature and nurture can be set aside by a volitional consciousness.

Darrell

[tjohnson]

I don't see a satiric grin, so that would mean you actually mean that statement?

Yes, I do. Telling people what is right and wrong according to some moral code has never worked very well as a behaviour modification scheme and never will.

[Brant Gaede]

I don't see a satiric grin, so that would mean you actually mean that statement?

Yes, I do. Telling people what is right and wrong according to some moral code has never worked very well as a behaviour modification scheme and never will.

I tell myself what's right and wrong and own firearms in case I run into a certain type who doesn't agree with me.

Of course you can reason with people who seeing you are right modify their behavior to their own personal benefit. After all, Objectivism is a philosophy of reason or it isn't Objectivism.

--Brant

go forth and reason--and the other thing too

[Brant Gaede]

On a species level it is not pathological for a percentage of the population to be non-reproductive, provided the remaining ones can reproduce enough for survival. This obviously is not a problem with humans who are reproducing very well thank you. Is it moral? I think that's irrelevant. Morals are for religion, it's old school.

Are you talking about morality generally or just dictates from an authority?

--Brant

[Selene]

I don't see a satiric grin, so that would mean you actually mean that statement?

Yes, I do. Telling people what is right and wrong according to some moral code has never worked very well as a behaviour modification scheme and never will.

"On a species level it is not pathological for a percentage of the population to be non-reproductive, provided the remaining ones can reproduce enough for survival. This obviously is not a problem with humans who are reproducing very well thank you. Is it moral? I think that's irrelevant. Morals are for religion, it's old school."

I'm sorry, did I miss that bolded section that is not in what I was responding to?

Your statement was not about percentages of success with behavior modification, it appeared to be a blanket abandonment of the field of morals and surrendering it to religion.

I am confused.

Adam

[tjohnson]

I tell myself what's right and wrong and own firearms in case I run into a certain type who doesn't agree with me.

Of course you can reason with people who seeing you are right modify their behavior to their own personal benefit. After all, Objectivism is a philosophy of reason or it isn't Objectivism.

--Brant

go forth and reason--and the other thing too

You can tell a car jacker that his behaviour is morally wrong and do you think this will help change his behaviour? Obviously not, you would rather tell him with your gun. You and Selene still think like the Cowboys and the American Wild West don't you? Well guess what? Violence breeds more violence so if you want to live in a violent world then by all means arm every man, women, and child and shoot first and ask questions later.

[Brant Gaede]

I tell myself what's right and wrong and own firearms in case I run into a certain type who doesn't agree with me.

Of course you can reason with people who seeing you are right modify their behavior to their own personal benefit. After all, Objectivism is a philosophy of reason or it isn't Objectivism.

--Brant

go forth and reason--and the other thing too

You can tell a car jacker that his behaviour is morally wrong and do you think this will help change his behaviour? Obviously not, you would rather tell him with your gun. You and Selene still think like the Cowboys and the American Wild West don't you? Well guess what? Violence breeds more violence so if you want to live in a violent world then by all means arm every man, women, and child and shoot first and ask questions later.

Over a decade ago a couple were driving their RV in South Florida when a man jumped on the running board and reached in side to open the door. The wife was screaming. The driver pulled out his revolver and the would be RV jacker jumped off. No shots were fired.

As state after state has created concealed carry laws violent crime in those states has gone down.

If a rapist fears a woman might be packing heat he'll be less likely to do the crime.

A truck driver in NYC was attacked by a hijacker. The truck driver hit him with his tire thumper leaving him unconscious or dead on the asphalt. He explained to the police officer what had happened. The officer told him to get out of there. He didn't want to do the paperwork.

A truck driver trying to enter Canada was told by the dork at the border that his tire thumper was considered to be a weapon and he'd have to give it up.

Here in Tucson home invaders got shot up by the resident.

I sometimes pack heat.

If you have the right to defend yourself you certainly have the right to defend yourself with something.

If someone's violence begets my violence you can be sure that'll be the end of it but not the end of me. I don't fight fair.

The pussified world exists courtesy of the United States, twice liberator of Europe and winner of the Cold War.

--Brant

fight for your freedom

Ad hominem begets ad hominem.

Edited August 1, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

This is an inaccurate statement as far as the United States:

"Violence breeds more violence so if you want to live in a violent world then by all means arm every man, women, and child and shoot first and ask questions later."

If you wish to deny the facts, my personal testimony, Brant's and every monthly edition of the American Rifleman wherein there is a column called "The Armed Citizen" wherein grandmothers stop savages from molesting their grandchildren or themselves be my guest.

You are flat out wrong.

An interview with

John R. Lott, Jr.

author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws

Question: What does the title mean: More Guns, Less Crime?

John R. Lott, Jr.: States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws—called "shall-issue" laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness.

Question: It just seems to defy common sense that crimes likely to involve guns would be reduced by allowing more people to carry guns. How do you explain the results?

<br clear="all">John R. Lott, Jr. is a resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute. He was previously the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School.

Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.

Question: What is the basis for these numbers?

Lott: The analysis is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.

Question: Your argument about criminals and deterrence doesn't tell the whole story. Don't statistics show that most people are killed by someone they know?

Lott: You are referring to the often-cited statistic that 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances. However, what most people don't understand is that this "acquaintance murder" number also includes gang members killing other gang members, drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by customers they picked up for the first time, prostitutes and their clients, and so on. "Acquaintance" covers a wide range of relationships. The vast majority of murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens. Ninety percent of adult murderers have had criminal records as adults.

Question: But how about children? In March of this year [1998] four children and a teacher were killed by two school boys in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Won't tragedies like this increase if more people are allowed to carry guns? Shouldn't this be taken into consideration before making gun ownership laws more lenient?

Lott: The horrific shooting in Arkansas occurred in one of the few places where having guns was already illegal. These laws risk creating situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves from the bad ones. I have studied multiple victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1995. These were incidents in which at least two or more people were killed and or injured in a public place; in order to focus on the type of shooting seen in Arkansas, shootings that were the byproduct of another crime, such as robbery, were excluded. The effect of "shall-issue" laws on these crimes has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent, and injuries by 82 percent.

For other types of crimes, I find that both children as well as adults are protected when law-abiding adults are allowed to carry concealed handguns.

Finally, after extensively studying the number of accidental shootings, there is no evidence that increasing the number of concealed handguns increases accidental shootings. We know that the type of person who obtains a permit is extremely law-abiding and possibly they are extremely careful in how they take care of their guns. The total number of accidental gun deaths each year is about 1,300 and each year such accidents take the lives of 200 children 14 years of age and under. However, these regrettable numbers of lives lost need to be put into some perspective with the other risks children face. Despite over 200 million guns owned by between 76 to 85 million people, the children killed is much smaller than the number lost through bicycle accidents, drowning, and fires. Children are 14.5 times more likely to die from car accidents than from accidents involving guns.

Question: Wouldn't allowing concealed weapons increase the incidents of citizens attacking each other in tense situations? For instance, sometimes in traffic jams or accidents people become very hostile—screaming and shoving at one another. If armed, might people shoot each other in the heat of the moment?

Lott: During state legislative hearings on concealed-handgun laws, possibly the most commonly raised concern involved fears that armed citizens would attack each other in the heat of the moment following car accidents. The evidence shows that such fears are unfounded. Despite millions of people licensed to carry concealed handguns and many states having these laws for decades, there has only been one case where a person with a permit used a gun after a traffic accident and even in that one case it was in self-defense.

Question: Violence is often directed at women. Won't more guns put more women at risk?

Lott: Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but a gun represents a much larger change in a woman's ability to defend herself than it does for a man. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3 to 4 times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men.

Question: Aren't you playing into people's fears and prejudices though? Don't politicians pass these shall-issue laws to mollify middle-class white suburbanites anxious about the encroachment of urban minority crime?

Lott: I won't speculate about motives, but the results tell a different story. High crime urban areas and neighborhoods with large minority populations have the greatest reductions in violent crime when citizens are legally allowed to carry concealed handguns.

Question: What about other countries? It's often argued that Britain, for instance, has a lower violent crime rate than the USA because guns are much harder to obtain and own.

Lott: The data analyzed in this book is from the USA. Many countries, such as Switzerland, New Zealand, Finland, and Israel have high gun-ownership rates and low crime rates, while other countries have low gun ownership rates and either low or high crime rates. It is difficult to obtain comparable data on crime rates both over time and across countries, and to control for all the other differences across the legal systems and cultures across countries. Even the cross country polling data on gun ownership is difficult to assess, because ownership is underreported in countries where gun ownership is illegal and the same polls are never used across countries.

Question: This is certainly controversial and there are certain to be counter-arguments from those who disagree with you. How will you respond to them?

Lott: Some people do use guns in horrible ways, but other people use guns to prevent horrible things from happening to them. The ultimate question that concerns us all is: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? While there are many anecdotal stories illustrating both good and bad uses of guns, this question can only be answered by looking at data to find out what the net effect is.

All of chapter seven of the book is devoted to answering objections that people have raised to my analysis. There are of course strong feelings on both sides about the issue of gun ownership and gun control laws. The best we can do is to try to discover and understand the facts. If you agree, or especially if you disagree with my conclusions I hope you'll read the book carefully and develop an informed opinion.

[tjohnson]

The pussified world exists courtesy of the United States, twice liberator of Europe and winner of the Cold War.

--Brant

fight for your freedom

Ad hominem begets ad hominem.

Nationalistic bullshit.

[tjohnson]

Having citizens carrying arms may indeed reduce the crime rate - I don't know. But this is not a solution to the crime problem! At best it is a stopgap measure that temporarily helps. Having citizens going around armed is regression to previous times when we had nothing better, it certainly is not what an enlightened society should strive for.

Edited August 1, 2009 by general semanticist

[Brant Gaede]

The pussified world exists courtesy of the United States, twice liberator of Europe and winner of the Cold War.

--Brant

fight for your freedom

Ad hominem begets ad hominem.

Nationalistic bullshit.

I will no longer read or respond to your posts.

--Brant

[Selene]

Having citizens carrying arms may indeed reduce the crime rate - I don't know. But this is not a solution to the crime problem! At best it is a stopgap measure that temporarily helps. Having citizens going around armed is regression to previous times when we had nothing better, it certainly is not what an enlightened society should strive for.

It is a fact that it reduces crime. We can agree on that.

However, your question as to a regression to previous times also misses another fact. Most previous societies did not have an armed citizenry. Tai chi came out of the right of self defense wherein the state or the warlord or the marauder was well armed.

Most previous times were primarily agricultural.

However, assuming you can be specific as to "an enlightened society", how should "crime" be treated? A more primary question would be whether an enlightened society would even have a concept such as "crime".

Which I would expect you would define also.

Interesting questions.

Adam

[tjohnson]

It is a fact that it reduces crime. We can agree on that.

However, your question as to a regression to previous times also misses another fact. Most previous societies did not have an armed citizenry. Tai chi came out of the right of self defense wherein the state or the warlord or the marauder was well armed.

Most previous times were primarily agricultural.

However, assuming you can be specific as to "an enlightened society", how should "crime" be treated? A more primary question would be whether an enlightened society would even have a concept such as "crime".

Which I would expect you would define also.

Interesting questions.

Adam

I was thinking of the American West when everyone was packing 6-shooters. It was you who brought that up. Do you think little boys think "when I grow up up I'm going to be a criminal"? Or do you think that maybe they become that way as a result of circumstances some of which are in their control but many of which are out of their control? What is the best way to deal with this? Should we keep on producing pathological individuals but give everyone handguns or maybe we should look into the reasons why these individuals end up the way they do and possibly make some changes in our social structure?

Interesting questions.

[Selene]

It is a fact that it reduces crime. We can agree on that.

However, your question as to a regression to previous times also misses another fact. Most previous societies did not have an armed citizenry. Tai chi came out of the right of self defense wherein the state or the warlord or the marauder was well armed.

Most previous times were primarily agricultural.

However, assuming you can be specific as to "an enlightened society", how should "crime" be treated? A more primary question would be whether an enlightened society would even have a concept such as "crime".

Which I would expect you would define also.

Interesting questions.

Adam

I was thinking of the American West when everyone was packing 6-shooters. It was you who brought that up. Do you think little boys think "when I grow up up I'm going to be a criminal"? Or do you think that maybe they become that way as a result of circumstances some of which are in their control but many of which are out of their control? What is the best way to deal with this? Should we keep on producing pathological individuals but give everyone handguns or maybe we should look into the reasons why these individuals end up the way they do and possibly make some changes in our social structure?

Interesting questions.

Yes indeed. How do "we keep on producing pathological individuals in your view?" I, personally try not to contribute to producing those individuals.

Can we agree that there are some of the "paths" that are genetically hard wired "paths" and that another percentage become, suddenly, "paths".

When I read Genome, I was gratified to find out that there were some genetic anomalies that produced a brain disease in the person's 30's. I believe that the author also argued that the DNA of the "witches" of Salem were of that genetic strain.

Therefore, we are confining the potential "paths" that we can effect as the group under discussion...yes.

Adam

[tjohnson]

Can we agree that there are some of the "paths" that are genetically hard wired "paths" and that another percentage become, suddenly, "paths".

No, we cannot agree on that.

[Selene]

Can we agree that there are some of the "paths" that are genetically hard wired "paths" and that another percentage become, suddenly, "paths".

No, we cannot agree on that.

Enlighten me. I have been told by some reasonably knowledgeable people in the field that is true.

Adam

[tjohnson]

Can we agree that there are some of the "paths" that are genetically hard wired "paths" and that another percentage become, suddenly, "paths".

No, we cannot agree on that.

Enlighten me. I have been told by some reasonably knowledgeable people in the field that is true.

Adam

I will agree that some people are born with anti-social predispositions. The net result of a human adult is a combination of genetic makeup and environmental influences. This applies in all aspects of health, mental and physical. A criminal is not mentally healthy, can we agree on that? If so, why do we choose to punish him for being sick? What if you got sent to prison for getting cancer or heart disease? Hmm.. I think they used to do that for leprosy.

[Selene]

Gs:

Ok, some are "pre-disposed" which still needs refining, but that works for now.

Let us take Leopold and Loeb who were the children of wealthy Chicago families who randomly kidnapped a young boy, clubbed and strangled him in the back seat of the car, before stuffing his broken body in a drainage pipe.

We agree that they were "unhealthy". However, their environmental influences did not involve poverty, lack of education and socialization skills, etc. What do we do with that "strain" of individual?

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

Gs:

Ok, some are "pre-disposed" which still needs refining, but that works for now.

Let us take Leopold and Loeb who were the children of wealthy Chicago families who randomly kidnapped a young boy, clubbed and strangled him in the back seat of the car, before stuffing his broken body in a drainage pipe.

We agree that they were "unhealthy". However, their environmental influences did not involve poverty, lack of education and socialization skills, etc. What do we do with that "strain" of individual?

Adam

Hang them high. But that is not what happened. The taxpayers of Illinois fed them for decades.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

We agree that they were "unhealthy". However, their environmental influences did not involve poverty, lack of education and socialization skills, etc. What do we do with that "strain" of individual?

Adam

You think these people developed socialization skills?? I think not! Actually, being wealthy may work against one's socialization. BTW, I am not suggesting that ALL criminals can be rehabilitated , I am saying that crime is a mental health problem and the whole idea of punishing sick people is crazy and will never work.

[Selene]

We agree that they were "unhealthy". However, their environmental influences did not involve poverty, lack of education and socialization skills, etc. What do we do with that "strain" of individual?

Adam

You think these people developed socialization skills?? I think not! Actually, being wealthy may work against one's socialization. BTW, I am not suggesting that ALL criminals can be rehabilitated , I am saying that crime is a mental health problem and the whole idea of punishing sick people is crazy and will never work.

I understand what you think does not work. Punishing "sick people" does not work as per your statement.**

I am asking you what an enlightened society should do with these "sick people"? For example, a person robs a bank, kills a security guard by smashing in his skull with a metal pipe and while escaping takes a pregnant woman hostage. In his apprehension, the woman is traumatized and loses the child. What do we do?

Or, is your argument that an enlightened society would not generate "criminals"?

Adam

**[i am biting my tongue and not comparing that statement as to the health care system being proposed in the US which would punish sick people in numbers never even imagined in the middle ages]