Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old 11-26-2017, 07:06 AM
PolyNatural's Avatar
PolyNatural PolyNatural is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Calgary Canada
Posts: 91
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seinneann View Post
Which you have yet to be able to provide a practical way to define or use since there is not universally applicable definition of "ethical"
There are perfectly applicable definitions of "ethical" in most English dictionaries. What's not universally applicable are the specific terms and conditions that apply to the definition, which is just fine. That's how it should be.
Quote:
... which makes your condition entirely subjective.
Again, ethics isn't "entirely" subjective as you claim. This was pointed out with the example of conflict of interest, which can have tangible and measurable consequences, and when paired with emotional intelligence, a viewpoint that is far more objective than an offhanded personal self-serving opinion can be reached.
Quote:
You're operating under the assumption that ethics aren't generally applied in such situations. I'm talking about a baseline. Everything else you offer is merely fluff if you can't apply a clear definition to it. You could replace "ethical" with "moral" or "righteous" or "in line with my religion" and you would get the exact same result, hence it's not useful.
Simply calling the points I've made "fluff" is at best a hand wave.
Quote:
There are well substantiated opinions on ethics from various well credited philosophers that are in conflict with each other. The field is full of them. If you hold the key to how to decide which is better substantiated than others, I'm sure there are many DPhil students who would love to meet you.
That's fine. Not everyone has to agree, but at least the people who do spend the time to substantiate their views have some reason to be taken more seriously than someone who self-servingly interprets ethical as whatever they deem it to be in the moment.
Quote:
Ah. I see. You're operating on the assumption that many of us haven't considered these issues in greater depth or that none but you have applied any study to the subject and are merely being self-serving when we hold our positions ...
You're putting words in my mouth and attempting to bait me. It won't work. I'm moving on to other posts.
__________________

"Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know." - Hemmingway | Introduction To Polyamory
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 11-26-2017, 08:17 AM
Seinneann Seinneann is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Default

Quote:
There are perfectly applicable definitions of "ethical" in most English dictionaries. What's not universally applicable are the specific terms and conditions that apply to the definition, which is just fine. That's how it should be.
Then your need to include the word continues to lack meaning.

Quote:
Again, ethics isn't "entirely" subjective as you claim. This was pointed out with the example of conflict of interest, which can have tangible and measurable consequences, and when paired with emotional intelligence, a viewpoint that is far more objective than an offhanded personal self-serving opinion can be reached.
You're creating more and more conditions for your definition then. Why not include "emotional intelligence" as well since you seem to view that as an additional requirement? I'm also interested to see what your objective definition of such a concept is.

Quote:
Simply calling the points I've made "fluff" is at best a hand wave.
Because that was all it warranted. If you had offered something more substantive, it would have garnered a more substantive reply.

Quote:
That's fine. Not everyone has to agree, but at least the people who do spend the time to substantiate their views have some reason to be taken more seriously than someone who self-servingly interprets ethical as whatever they deem it to be in the moment.
But it would still be ethical according to how you wish to apply it. So is it only ethical if you judge it to be sufficiently researched and educated? Which philosophers? Which schools of thought are legit in your view? How much constitutes "substantive" enough? What if someone falls *just* under the threshold you deem between "personal self-serving opinion" and "having spent enough time to substantiate their views"? I wonder how you assess such things to begin with without making assumptions.

Quote:
You're putting words in my mouth and attempting to bait me. It won't work. I'm moving on to other posts.
Just calling it as I see it. I you choose to ignore the feedback, that's your prerogative. But it is *exactly* how you come across in most of your posting.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 11-26-2017, 09:49 PM
vinsanity0's Avatar
vinsanity0 vinsanity0 is offline
Spaminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,404
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PolyNatural View Post
It doesn't say "legal consent" it just says "consent", so now you'd have to add "legal consent" and start drawing up all the rules for all the exceptions in specific terms when it's not necessary. Simply saying "ethical" covers the bases just fine.
I didn't mention anything about legal consent. A 12 year old girl lacks the mental capability to consent to such an arrangement. However, I would argue that the word "consent" covers both legal and otherwise.

As I said before, ethics are subjective. A pedophile will argue that their behavior is ethical because a child can make that choice. People who practice incest will also argue that their practice is ethical. Therefore, you will still have to start drawing up all the rules for all the exceptions, especially if you are going to to rely on a slippery slope argument.

But if you want to add something like "between adults" I would be fine with that.

Quote:
And again my point is being made for me. It's using the requirement of consent in an unethical manner, which would not be possible if it simply wasn't a requirement in the first place, and the only requirement is "ethical". Otherwise you'd have to say something like "full knowledge and legal or ethical consent" which is completely redundant when "ethical" without specific conditions covers all contingencies.
But is it unethical to say "I will allow you to do this if you do that for me"?

I think you are missing the real point. I would not consent to that behavior, therefore someone who was holding their consent hostage would no longer be in my life. You see, consent works both ways. Your argument illogically assumes the person seeking consent has no choice in the matter.

Since you are so stuck on using the word "ethics", who will be the defining authority on those ethics? Do you propose a Polyamory Board of Ethics to review each and every relationship to determine if it passes muster? Who decides what is ethical in terms of polyamory?
__________________
Vince 55/het/m
Mary 55/het/f/married LDR
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:52 AM.