Post your unpopular opinions

[Dodo25]

I like the idea of this thread. I think the OP's views are interesting and in a way consequent, yet I certainly wouldn't subscribe to all of them.

Here some of my views (no particular order) which may seem provocative. If anyone is interested, I'm willing (and methinks quite able, except maybe for number 7) to defend them.

1.) Forms of Killing
Moral decisions should be based solely on the value of their consequences. The difference between drowning a child in a pond, watching a child drown in a pond, and buying a bigger house instead of helping starving children in Ethiopia is orders of magnitudes smaller than people think. Applied to euthanasia, this means there's no difference between letting someone die and killing the person. In fact, killing might even be more humane because it is faster and painless.

2.) Child Pornography
One should seriously consider to legalize virtual child porn. By this, I mean child porn with computer animated children, not produced with real ones. The only circumstance in which it shouldn't be legalized is if it can be shown empirically that it would encourage child molesting (but I highly doubt that, as with the 'killer-games leading to shool shootings')

3.) Love
Love is a feeling that evolved because it benefits the individual's genes. In our ancestors, it ensured that effort was put into getting with the genetically suitable partner, and then, in the 'bonding stage', that the children would be cared for by mother and father, at least for a couple of years. Basically, love is hormones acting in the brain like drugs.

4.) Alternative for Democracy
One should research the practicality of a state ruled by 'philosopher kings' as suggested in Plato's 'Republic'. In fact, once circumstances will be ready (good education, no fundamentalism in the population), one should try out the idea.

5.) Animal Rights and Experiments
An adult, healthy chimpanzee deserves more ethical consideration than a human infant or an Alzheimer patient (if they don't have caring friends or family that is). If experiments on chimps can be justified, they can be justified for human infants or late-stage Alzheimer patients, especially because it would be of higher medical use to us.

6.) God & Free Will
God most certainly doesn't exist. The human brain, including consciousness, is a product of evolution. We don't have 'magical free will', yet it does make sense to hold a majority of people responsible for their actions, simply because by doing so, one creates a deterrent and actually changes the behavior. People want to be responsible, and in the way it is worth wanting, we do have free will.

7.) Dark Matter
Dark matter is, IMO, the result of gravity leaking from clusters of matter in parallel universes into our universe. I think there are billions of universes, most of them much less than a milimeter away from us.

8.) Emotion & Rationality
Rationality is always more important, except when it is about love, then the issue gets difficult. If an emotion is not rationally justifiable, one should try to get rid of it. Don't get this wrong, all emotions are important sometimes, it's just that in some special circumstances they are very unhelpful. Again, love is the exception (because it makes happy and is thus an end in itself in a happiness oriented ethical system).

9.) Religion
I think the world would be a better place without it being practised (since it's wrong and potentially dangerous).

10.) Religion & Children
There should be a minimum age for when children are allowed to be referred to as belonging to a particular religion. Indoctrination is child abuse, children should be presented the views objectively and choose, once they are of a certain age, i.e. 16, whether they want to belong to a particular religion or not. Before that, one should not refer to a child as a 'Christian child'.

[The Atheist]

I think the purpose of the OP was to wind up the populace.

It has that look about it - controversy for the sake of itself.

[Alexander III]

I believe that literature contains more truth than history. History tells us that Nero committed suicide, but what if we recently discovered documents which prove that he was murdered, then history changes. However throughout space and time, Dorian Gray stabbed his portrait and killed himself.

[Lokasenna]

As I started reading this, the Dies Irae from Mozart's Requiem popped up on my music player - the sense of apocalypse was astounding, I can tell you.

If the OP is endevouring to stir up a fuss, then that is lamentable, but I'm sure I'll cope. If they are genuinely held views, then they are utterly repellent - for once, I'm hoping it is trollishness.

Perhaps you should have a long, hard think about why your views are unpopular?

[Mr. Pedantic]

1. I think God is petty.

That's all.

5.) Animal Rights and Experiments
An adult, healthy chimpanzee deserves more ethical consideration than a human infant or an Alzheimer patient (if they don't have caring friends or family that is). If experiments on chimps can be justified, they can be justified for human infants or late-stage Alzheimer patients, especially because it would be of higher medical use to us.
'.

Experiments on babies!? We've either got an Eduard Wirths on our hands, or a Jonathan Swift. Besides, animals can't join moral communities, so they have no rights. Babies however, grow into functioning adults with much more intelligence than chimpanzees. I willing to bet this poster was never a parent.

[breathtest]

1. Moral decisions should be based on empathy and empathy alone. I define empathy as being emotionally insync with another being's state of mind (ie. happy because they are happy and sad when they are sad). This view naturally leads to ethical hedonism - the belief that pleasure/happiness is the only thing that is intrinsically good and suffering is the only thing that is intrinsically bad. If an action does not cause someone to suffer or frustrate their desire to be happy, it is not morally wrong. If an action does not minimize suffering or increase happiness, it is not beneficial.

2. All third world debts should be abolished. It is wrong for Western governments to demand payment for debts accumulated by corrupt governments that were not democratically elected.

3. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, there is nothing inherently perverse about it nor is child-adult sex inherently harmful. I'm not saying that child-adult sex should not be discouraged but it should only be discouraged on the basis that the child might come to regret the experience (especially having been raised in a culture that would condition him/her to view the act as harmful and inappropriate in retrospect despite being consensual and harmless at the time) and suffer as a result, I think that children/young teens are more emotionally vulnerable than are adults. Simulated child pornography should be legal, pedophiles should have a right to express their sexuality so long as they don't act on their desires.


4. Marriage (including civil unions) as a legal institution should be abolished. Your personal relationships are none of the government's business. There is a religious component to Western/modern marriage and there should be a separation between church and state. Until that day comes, homosexual couples and polyamorous couples should have the same legal benefits that heterosexual and monogamous couples do.

5. Non-human animals (and we should assume that every animal with a nervous system might be sentient, no matter how different or unlike our own it may be) deserve the same equal consideration that humans do, sentience is the only morally relevant criterion and there are no 'higher' or 'lower' degrees of consciousness. Factory farming, vivisection, driving non-domesticated animals from their homes through deforestation/habitat destruction etc. aren't any more acceptable than they would be if the victims were humans. The interests (all sentient beings have an interest in pursuing happiness and avoiding distress) of all sentient beings are equally important and should be given equal respect.

6. Until science comes up with a solution for global warming and genetically engineering humans who are incapable of experiencing non-trivial distress or behaving anti-socially becomes possible, it would be compassionate to avoid reproducing.

7. There is nothing wrong with being sexually promiscuous and there is nothing noble or appropriate about being monogamous. Romantic love/sexual desire is selfish and amoral. Sex is an inherently intimate act but you don't copulate or start a relationship with someone because you feel empathy for them (even if you do), you do so for your own selfish reasons, because it benefits you. You can't force yourself to be attracted to someone you respect or care about even if you could force yourself to have a sexual/romantic relationship with them for purely altruistic reasons, you're not attracted to someone because you feel they deserve your attraction or because you think they would benefit from it. Empathy has the potential to be unconditional and universal (for all sentient beings), sexual/romantic attraction is selective and shallow to the extent that it's based on physical appearance. People should stop moralizing sex. I would also argue that while there's no moral reason to have more than one partner, it would be empathetic to allow your partner the freedom to have other sex/romantic partners if doing so would make them happy.

8. Physical phenomenon is all that exists. There is no God and no such thing as a 'soul'. Since the brain is just a physical object, it behaves according to the same laws of physics that every other physical object in the (macro) universe does. People don't choose to behave the way they they do, they mindlessly react to environmental stimuli and experience the illusion of having chosen to do so after they've already 'decided' to do so (this is supported by modern neuroscience). Nobody deserves to be punished or rewarded for their behavior. Even quantum randomness would still not be 'free will' in the sense that most people use the word. Despite believing this intellectually it's difficult for me to accept it emotionally which is why I don't feel empathy for most human beings.

9. Circumcising male infants for non-medical reasons is wrong.

10. Fiction is a better vehicle for moral commentary than ethics as an academic discipline is. Philosophy is abstract, fiction shows how moral ideas and views can be applied in real life scenarios. Besides, fiction can generate empathy by forcing you to put yourself in the shoes of the characters you read about. " You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view...until you climb into his skin and walk around in it" - Atticus from To Kill A Mockingbird.

African Love - I commend you immensely for starting this thread. I am really impressed. Best thread on the forum by far.

I also happen to agree with every single one of your points here. And i don't understand why people can't just admit what they really feel about something.

With regards to your third point, my eyes were really opened after reading an interview of Allen Ginsberg, where he talked about how he felt sexually attracted to young boys under the legal age for sex. The interviewer was a christian and was outraged, but what he said really makes sense. If you are attracted to children, or to somebody of the same sex, then that's the way it is. You cannot help it, and you should not be looked down upon for it.

[Haunted]

Like Dodo, I support Animal Rights.

Experiments for human products should be conducted on humans only.

Murder One should apply to those who murdered someone, human or animal.

disclaimer: animals under this protection are limited to furry animals, birds and some fish. Snakes, sharks and other unnamed species are not covered.

[Drkshadow03]

I say we abolish anyone with a middle name that begins with the letter A.

Oh, and Canada!

[breathtest]

You lost me there. Are you serious? How the hell can a 10 year old girl make any sort of rational decision about sex when she hardly has even reached puberty?! Even a 14 year old. Make pediophillia legal, and you'll have more 14 year old girls having babies born by creepy older men.

This is truly just sick. NO ONE intheir right mind would support it.

DanielBenoit - you are missing the point here i think. African Love was saying that paedophlia SHOULD be discouraged, but only on the grounds that the child may regret it or be damaged by it later. He was saying that virtual pornography should be legal because it allows paedophiles to come to terms with their sexuality so they do not have to rape a child to get the sexual release that they need.

Experiments on babies!? We've either got an Eduard Wirths on our hands, or a Jonathan Swift. Besides, animals can't join moral communities, so they have no rights. Babies however, grow into functioning adults with much more intelligence than chimpanzees. I willing to bet this poster was never a parent.

So you are saying intelligence is the only important thing here? chimpanzees feel pain the same as humans do, emotional and physical. I'm saying that's enough to stop experiments on them altogether.

[Delta40]

DanielBenoit - you are missing the point here i think. African Love was saying that paedophlia SHOULD be discouraged, but only on the grounds that the child may regret it or be damaged by it later. He was saying that virtual pornography should be legal because it allows paedophiles to come to terms with their sexuality so they do not have to rape a child to get the sexual release that they need.

does this mean that I should be grateful for all the adult pornography that is currently out there because it is a preventative measure against men raping women?

[Mr. Pedantic]

So you are saying intelligence is the only important thing here? chimpanzees feel pain the same as humans do, emotional and physical. I'm saying that's enough to stop experiments on them altogether.

I never said intelligence is the only thing that matters. Don't strawman me.

Does a zebra has the right not to be eaten by a lion?

No, of course not. Like all animals, the chimpanzee doesn't have the capacity to understand rights, therefore it has none.

Rights are a man made concept and therefore only apply to men. I'll meet you halfway and say that we have a moral obligation to not be cruel to animals purposelessly. Animal research saves human lives. How do you think vaccines are created? With lots of animal testing, of course. Think of that next time you get your flu shot.

[breathtest]

does this mean that I should be grateful for all the adult pornography that is currently out there because it is a preventative measure against men raping women?

Rape is always going to exist, but i think virtual child pornography might help to cut down on child-rape.

Adult pornoraphy might have less of an effect because sex with another adult is not illegal, and therefore people with those kinds of sexual desires can usually indulge them legally.

Understand that i am not trying to defend child rape or anything like that. I am only trying to think of ways that it can be reduced. I hope nobody takes my comments the wrong way. They are not intended to offend.

I never said intelligence is the only thing that matters. Don't strawman me.

Does a zebra has the right not to be eaten by a lion?

No, of course not. Like all animals, the chimpanzee doesn't have the capacity to understand rights, therefore it has none.

Rights are a man made concept and therefore only apply to men. I'll meet you halfway and say that we have a moral obligation to not be cruel to animals purposelessly. Animal research saves human lives. How do you think vaccines are created? With lots of animal testing, of course. Think of that next time you get your flu shot.

No no i wasn't trying to strawman you. It is just that you only mentioned intelligence in your previous comment. And i think that with our higher intelligence we should have an obligation to loook after less intelligent animals. I particularly had cosmetics testing in mind with my other comment.

And i realise that without animal testing we would not have gained so much ground within the medical field, i just cannot understand how people shamelessly use animals for testing and do not feel bad about it.

[African_Love]

Well-meaning, but idealistic. Pure and total empathy, that is, being able to feel exactly what another person is feeling at all times, is impossible because we are not that person.

I think you have an overly literal understanding of empathy. The basis of empathy is imagination. I can't literally feel what you feel but I can imagine your emotional state of mind and identify with it. If I believed that my car was sad and I wanted to alleviate it's sadness, that would be empathy (albeit misguided empathy). Empathy is a form of love.

Also, to use empathy and only empathy for each and every situaiton is not practical nor will it be fully consistent at all times. If one is fully empathetic for both the murdered man's family and fully empathetic for the murderer's social status which may have forced him to commit murder (maybe he accidently killed him while he was committing a robbery), that will not bring out rational decision, nor will it bring out justice.

Unless the killing can be undone, there can be no justice in this scenario. The goal of the state should be to prevent people from killing each other and the most effective way to do this is to eliminate the socio-economic problems that lead to most crimes (easier said than done, I admit). It might be necessary to send the killer to jail but we can try to ensure that (s)he has a decent standard of living while at the same time preparing him/her for a successful reentry into society.

Empathy is something that this cruel and impersonal world needs, but empathy alone will not fix anything.

This is true, empathy needs to be guided by logic and critical thinking. My point is that the objective of our moral decisions should be to minimize suffering and increase happiness.

You lost me there. Are you serious? How the hell can a 10 year old girl make any sort of rational decision about sex when she hardly has even reached puberty?! Even a 14 year old. Make pediophillia legal, and you'll have more 14 year old girls having babies born by creepy older men.

If you reread my post carefully, you'll see that I never advocated child-adult sex. I only said that if child-adult sex should be discouraged, it should be discouraged on the basis that it might result in the child's suffering and not because the act itself is inherently wrong or inappropriate. I would point out that not all children become emotionally damaged as a result of having had sex with an adult (some studies of gay men who have had sex with young boys actually showed that the effects ranged from neutral to positive), in some cultures child-adult sex is the norm and even practiced ritualistically as a rite of passage. I would also argue that some children and young teens are capable of making rational decisions. I have no bias in arguing that child-adult sex does or does not necessarily result in the suffering of children or that they are or are not capable of giving informed consent to sex with an adult. My point is that it's the consequences that make an action undesirable and not the action itself. If *hypothetically* it could be guaranteed that a child having sex with an adult would not suffer as a result then there would be no moral reason to discourage him/her from doing so. Rationality is only required for decision making because irrational decisions are more likely to lead to long-term distress. If it could be guaranteed that the child would not suffer as a result of having sex with an adult, then a capacity to make rational decisions simply wouldn't be necessary.

Please tell me how this would work?

Google 'abolition of suffering' or 'paradise engineering'.

I think the main point that needs defense here is why should we assume every animal with a "nervous system" is sentient? How rudimentary can that nervous system be. What if it is a person who used to have a full brain and now only has 5% due to some accident, what about just 3 neurons remaining, what about just 2, just 1?

If an animal has a functioning, developed enough nervous system that allows him/her/it to behave as though they are sentient, we should give them the benefit of the doubt. The negatives consequences of assuming that a sentient being is not sentient outweigh the negative consequences of assuming that a non-sentient thing is sentient. By 'sentient' I mean capable of conscious experience. I don't *know* that dogs are sentient but I don't know that other humans are sentient either. The evidence suggests the probability of all mammals and vertebrates being sentient and most modern day scientists accept this (they are unanimously in agreement about the likeliness of non-human mammals being sentient).

Why is a nervous system the line of demarcation for sentience. Plants, fungi, protists, and bacteria, all possess chemical systems that react in specific concert with the environment and possess biologies that have a "memory" of the environments which allow them to adapt to changes etc...

We 'know' that human consciousness is a neurological activity and only animals have a network of specialized cells that is anything like our nervous system. I would have had a better response some time ago, based on something Joan Dunayer (author of Animal Equality and Speciesism) wrote but I'm a little rusty.

The crass immaturity of banning marriage takes my breath away

Why should a government legally recognize romantic relationships and not platonic friendships? Why should the former be given certain tax and civil benefits that the latter does not have? Why on Earth is it a legal issue who you choose to cohabit or raise children with? I'm not saying that the relationship married couples have should be banned, only that marriage is a religious/cultural concept and not something a secular government should concern itself with.

and to suggest that promiscuity is a good thing is almost too ridiculous for words. Had you thought about the prevelance of sexually trnasmitted diseases, and it also goes against the idea of stopping reproducing. There is, I seem to recall, a direct link between the two.

So is protected, casual sex with more than one partner bad in and of itself or because it can result in std's? If std's were eliminated tomorrow, would sexual promiscuity still be 'wrong'? Why? I view sex as an amoral issue, I neither advocate nor discourage sexual promiscuity. And sex is not 'for' reproduction, children are just a consequence that can normally be avoided with condoms, birth control pills, vasectomies etc.

I'm not sure who it fits in with empathy, either, but that's another story.

It has nothing to do with empathy which is why I consider it to be amoral. It isn't empathetic or unempathetic to sleep with many different people. It is unempathetic to judge and demean people for how they choose to express their sexuality.

You cannot state that there is no God. You can state that in your opinion there is no God,

That's what I was doing. I was stating an opinion.

I might respond to the comments on the second page later. Thanks for the replies!

[The Comedian]

Here's a couple:

1. Sometimes freedom is a son of a *****.

2. Your parents know more than you.

[papayahed]

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Comments containing personal and/or off-topic comments will be removed without further warning.