As for porn being unhealthy. It has links to impotence. If you are OK with that, then flap away my incel neighbour.
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Victoribus Spolia wrote:the greater good (collectivist utilitarianism
Your standard is ultimately "the greater good" and what you pragmatically admit is still ultimately based on this main criteria.
Hence, you are a utilitarian or a consequentialist, not a syncretic.
Sivad wrote:I'm not sure how you're defining syncretic but for me it's recognizing that there's some validity in each of the competing theories without taking any of one of them as an absolute.
Sivad wrote:The greater good is the optimal balance of the rights of the individual with social utility, with broader historical and developmental concerns, as well as personal virtue. All of these things have a moral weight that we're obligated to recognize and respect, they're integral and intrinsic to the greater good and not just pragmatic requirements for achieving it.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:The criteria of "for the greatest good" is itself an ethical standard, and so if all moral positions are judged by that standard, you cannot call your position "syncretic."
Sivad wrote:You're confused, you're taking it to mean the standard determines the principles and that's exactly backwards. The standard is determined by the validity of the principles.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Semantics.
you are using a specific value as a governing criteria
I'm arriving at a specific value by weighing the various principles. The greater good is not predetermined and then justified post hoc, it's discovered through rational evaluation of the relevant moral factors.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:If that is the case, then how did you conclude that the "greatest good" was the most rational moral value?
Victoribus Spolia wrote:If you think that is fair, I don't see why you would be opposed to the pornography industry being regulated to protect children from viewing it when real psychological and social harm is quite evident.I have no problem with them regulating the porn industry, but I do have a problem with some guy who can barely operate his computer, suggesting you regulate the internet because he's too lazy to watch his kids.
ccdan wrote:The only "exploitation" and "suffering" and "pain" related to the vast majority of porn is strictly in the heads of people like you. In actual reality porn actors are happy because they get paid well and sometimes even enjoy the stuff they're doing.
Godstud wrote:yes, @MistyTiger if you already have confidence issues, it can do that, but I know a few couples who watch porn not only because it gets them in the mood, but it also gives them new ideas for sex, and they don't have unrealistic expectations about their partner.
Making that assumption is similar to watching Dr. House cure someone in an hour, then complaining that your own doctor can't do the same. Most people are very well aware of the unrealistic behavior being exhibited. More teenager boys would be into pizza delivery, otherwise.
Yes, it can be unhealthy if you watch too much and have unrealistic expectations, or an already unhealthy sex-life. This applies to all the so-called "vices", however.
Truth To Power wrote:It's obvious that this woman hates male sexuality for being visually oriented because she is so visually repulsive.
You're such a great feminist-communist stereotype,[…]
I don't know about the others, but at least Honda[…]
a trace gas has increased from .025% to .04% ove[…]
I will let Potemkin handle this should he come al[…]