Would you have sex with a complete stranger?

[Keirador]

Do you mean denying/controling all instincts or only a select set that some people link to morality. Which instincts do we need to control to be "human" and not an animal?

All of them. Your instincts can be useful, but allowing them to rule your reason and righteousness results in a reduction in your role in the human race.

 

[Rambuchan]

All of them. Your instincts can be useful, but allowing them to rule your reason and righteousness results in a reduction in your role in the human race.

Sticks of a bit of absolutism IMO.

So every time we take a crap we're reducing our role in the human race? If we take a crap upon a conscious decision do we do the human race a good turn? What are you on about with this exactly when you say "All of them"?

Do we not have the power of discretion also?

 

[Keirador]

I know you don't do this but I'm pointing out that whether or not we intend it, folks will naturally take in information that appears here. In that sense we all do this to a degree. So watch it with the falsehoods.
Too late in the day to have a look and comment on this further. Bed time beckons but I probably will come back to it. Dangers there are for sure but I simply wanted to put straight some of those stats, and their resulting (mis)messages.

But you haven't done so. You've just stated you didn't like what I said, and didn't believe it. Yes, the bits about premarital sex resulting in depression or a higher chance for divorce are hard to prove, but you certainly haven't disproven them. I've acknowledged that there are flaws in thoes studies or alternate explanations, but you cannot call them false until you have proven them so. As for what I've said about condom effectiveness, I haven't been misleading anyone. If people take alarm at learning of these facts, then the blame lies with public health information services and condom companies, not me. It should be common knowledge, as it's true. Condoms don't prevent pregnancies, they don't prevent any STDs, and they are completely useless in stopping some. If you don't like that, prove me wrong.

 

[Birdjaguar]

All of them. Your instincts can be useful, but allowing them to rule your reason and righteousness results in a reduction in your role in the human race.

All of them?
The ones that turn females into moms?
Those that make us scratch itches?
Our anomoly detection mechanism?
The ones that tell dads to protect their children?
The ones that tell us to back away from the edges of high places?
Should I keep going?

 

[Keirador]

All of them?
The ones that turn females into moms?
Those that make us scratch itches?
Our anomoly detection mechanism?
The ones that tell dads to protect their children?
The ones that tell us to back away from the edges of high places?
Should I keep going?

Yes. All of them. Some of your instincts are correct, and you can make a decision of reason and morality that conforms with what your initial instinct was. Some of your instincts will be wrong, and your reason and morals must override these instincts to make a more fitting decision. Instincts should never be the final and sole determinant in the decision-making process.
Have you ever read Camus' L'etranger? There is a man who allows instinct to make all of his decisions for him. The result is a being truly less than human.

 

[Bluemofia]

No. I've got my priorities.

 

[Keirador]

Sticks of a bit of absolutism IMO.

So every time we take a crap we're reducing our role in the human race? If we take a crap upon a conscious decision do we do the human race a good turn? What are you on about with this exactly when you say "All of them"?

Do we not have the power of discretion also?

I believe I am being misunderstood. I don't believe instincts are intrinsically wrong. In many cases, our instincts are dead-on, and can be very useful in making a decision. For example, if you simply get a "bad feeling" about someone when you meet them, this instinct alerts your faculties of reason and conscience to examine him more closely. He may turn out to be a particularly unsavory character, and you never would have realized had your instinct not alerted you to a problem. However, the final decision as a human person should rest not with our instinct, but with our reason and conscience.

As for crapping, you're not very far removed from animals when you crap, are you? Your method of egesting waste material is not very different from that of lesser animals. At our most base levels, we are in fact animals. As animals, we must perform certain functions as animals do: defecate, retract our arm suddenly if it encounters sudden heat or pain, eat, breathe, that sort of thing. These functions are not wrong, they simply do not distinguish us from animals- all animals do them, not just us. However, we are not just animals, we are more than that. We have certain gifts which distinguish us from even clever animals (I bet you can guess what they are at this point): reason and conscience. Human decisions should be determined in accordance with these gifts. Instinct may be a factor in these decisions, but it should not be the final determinant. If we allow it to be so, we lower ourselves to the position of animals. To many people, that is completely acceptable. Animals mate, and I'm sure many humans would be content with a simple mating relationship. Well, fine, I won't punish you for it. But as for me, I want a higher and more human connection: love. To attain it, I must raise myself above the animal. I have not always had this viewpoint, and in my past I have failed to raise myself above the animal. I knew base sexual relationships, and I found them wanting. I wanted complete human fulfillment, not just animal contentment, so I worked, and am still working, and will always work, to allow my human gifts to dictate my life, not my animal desires.

 

[CruddyLeper]

Yes, but not just any stranger. And of course I would use a condom.

 

[Ramius75]

Nope. too risky for me.

EDIT : forgot to add, if we have sex with a complete stranger, then we will need to forfeit our right to be a blood donor for at least a year.

 

[stormbind]

i know that, thay will have to show me a recent test

But the recent test result is worthless because it is always out of date information.

If they will sleep with you after 2 hours, then they will sleep with other people too.

 

[Rambuchan]

But you haven't done so. You've just stated you didn't like what I said, and didn't believe it. Yes, the bits about premarital sex resulting in depression or a higher chance for divorce are hard to prove, but you certainly haven't disproven them. I've acknowledged that there are flaws in thoes studies or alternate explanations, but you cannot call them false until you have proven them so.

I've got absolutely no intention of doing this now and I say that in all frankness without any spite. I simply can't be bothered right now. I'm just happy having made a note of the bold text. Besides I don't need to go on about it, I was simply interested in posting about those shakey facts. I've no axe to grind man and I'm not a public health broadcasting service either.

As for what I've said about condom effectiveness, I haven't been misleading anyone. If people take alarm at learning of these facts, then the blame lies with public health information services and condom companies, not me. It should be common knowledge, as it's true. Condoms don't prevent pregnancies, they don't prevent any STDs, and they are completely useless in stopping some. If you don't like that, prove me wrong.

Likewise, this will have to wait till after I've had a damn good kip, preparations for which start straight after I've submitted this. Night night.

 

[JohnRM]

By complete, I mean someone you've known for no more than an hour or two at most.

If you're currently involved in a relationship that would preclude such an encounter, answer as though you were available.

And I'm only interested in whether you would, not whether you have, so feel free to keep your doubtless varied and voluminous sexual history to yourself.

No.......................................

 

[Birdjaguar]

Have you ever read Camus' L'etranger? There is a man who allows instinct to make all of his decisions for him. The result is a being truly less than human.

Fiction is not a rational source for information about why people behave the way they do. Such stories are constructed to lead the reader to a specific end. Good stories allow us to set our reason aside and immerse ourselves in the arhtors imagination.

Yes. All of them. Some of your instincts are correct, and you can make a decision of reason and morality that conforms with what your initial instinct was. Some of your instincts will be wrong, and your reason and morals must override these instincts to make a more fitting decision. Instincts should never be the final and sole determinant in the decision-making process.

If reason is the ultimate arbitor of how we should behave and our choices should be driven by reason and morality, then what of belief? By it's very nature it is irrational. Belief in a non corporal all powerful, all knowing, eternal supreme being goes against all rationality. In fact I would say that you cannot make a rational choice about believing in god. Those who believe "know" it is right, but cannot construct the reasons it is true that meet any test of reasonableness. I say belief in god is instinctual and built into our very being. Reason keeps some people from such a discovery.

I think you are misguided when you say that reasoning improves decision making. In some situations it can; in many others it will cause bad endings. Ask any soldier or policeman. In some cases reasoned decisons are important, in others they will get you killed. You begin with a behavior standard (linked to your morality) that needs to be adhered to. Human instinct does not follow that standard if left to its own devices, therefore you must apply a controlling mechanism to keep your behavior on the mark: reason. By applying reason to your actions you are able to maintain your standard and hence, morality. Good decisions for you are those which are acceptable to your standard.

Now if I set up a set of standards based on a different morality, then applied reason to direct my actions, I would not behave the same as you even though we both believed that instinct should be managed by reason and morality. We're back to my god is better than your god.

 

[Keirador]

If reason is the ultimate arbitor of how we should behave and our choices should be driven by reason and morality, then what of belief? By it's very nature it is irrational. Belief in a non corporal all powerful, all knowing, eternal supreme being goes against all rationality. In fact I would say that you cannot make a rational choice about believing in god. Those who believe "know" it is right, but cannot construct the reasons it is true that meet any test of reasonableness. I say belief in god is instinctual and built into our very being. Reason keeps some people from such a discovery.

Just as humans are above animals, God is higher than humans. My gift of reason is necessary in allowing me to be human, but it can never raise me to a level at which I could speak of God as if I understood him. My faith in God is based as much as it can be on my gifts of reason and conscience, but in the end my belief results from an ineffable calling which is higher than human reasoning, not lower.

I think you are misguided when you say that reasoning improves decision making. In some situations it can; in many others it will cause bad endings. Ask any soldier or policeman. In some cases reasoned decisons are important, in others they will get you killed. You begin with a behavior standard (linked to your morality) that needs to be adhered to. Human instinct does not follow that standard if left to its own devices, therefore you must apply a controlling mechanism to keep your behavior on the mark: reason. By applying reason to your actions you are able to maintain your standard and hence, morality. Good decisions for you are those which are acceptable to your standard.

Now if I set up a set of standards based on a different morality, then applied reason to direct my actions, I would not behave the same as you even though we both believed that instinct should be managed by reason and morality. We're back to my god is better than your god.

But is a soldier or a policeman displaying uniquely human qualities when he reacts by instinct? Animals will automatically attack a sudden perceived threat, too. It is how they act after their reason take over that determines their humanity. For example; acting out of instinct is a legitimate defense in a murder trial. It's termed an accident, or at least called manslaughter instead of murder. It is only when reason is applied can your actions be considered a human choice.

 

[Plexus]

Nope. I won't even have sex with my girlfriend, whom I love.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Just as humans are above animals, God is higher than humans. My gift of reason is necessary in allowing me to be human, but it can never raise me to a level at which I could speak of God as if I understood him. My faith in God is based as much as it can be on my gifts of reason and conscience, but in the end my belief results from an ineffable calling which is higher than human reasoning, not lower.

You are hierarchically oriented (god and good is above and everything else ranked below all the way down to evil) where I am not. You seem to put instinct as a lower, further from god characteristic more closely associated with non humans. In my very flat cosmology: god alone is REAL. Our evolved consciousness provides us greater clarity of existence and the ability to control more things of all sorts for reasons both good and bad. Instincts (those genetic forces that shape all life) are a fundamental part of who we are as a race and as individuals. They are not by nature evil, bad, or worse that reason. Is spontaneous and joyous sexual escapade with a loved one outside of marriage worse that planned and thought out act of vengeance? Reason is just another tool for us to use or abuse. Love is beyond reason as it should be. But other than that I think we agree.

 

[jonatas]

Just as humans are above animals, God is higher than humans.

IMHO this is not the type of axiom to build a philosophy on.... I would argue that primatologists and psychologists, in addition to many others, would find this distinction quite arbitrary and counterproductive. This kind of thinking and assumption has been superceded.

 

[Yom]

I believe I am being misunderstood. I don't believe instincts are intrinsically wrong. In many cases, our instincts are dead-on, and can be very useful in making a decision. For example, if you simply get a "bad feeling" about someone when you meet them, this instinct alerts your faculties of reason and conscience to examine him more closely. He may turn out to be a particularly unsavory character, and you never would have realized had your instinct not alerted you to a problem. However, the final decision as a human person should rest not with our instinct, but with our reason and conscience.

This is all correct in my opinion, but it does not rule out reason dictating that you follow your instincts with regard to sex.

[As for crapping, you're not very far removed from animals when you crap, are you? Your method of egesting waste material is not very different from that of lesser animals. At our most base levels, we are in fact animals. As animals, we must perform certain functions as animals do: defecate, retract our arm suddenly if it encounters sudden heat or pain, eat, breathe, that sort of thing. These functions are not wrong, they simply do not distinguish us from animals- all animals do them, not just us. However, we are not just animals, we are more than that. We have certain gifts which distinguish us from even clever animals (I bet you can guess what they are at this point): reason and conscience.

Here is where you are wrong. Animals do not lack reason and conscience (at least, not all of them). As you can see in WillJ's monkey economics thread, they are very capable of both, just to lesser degrees. The difference between humans and animals is not qualitative, but much more quantitative.

Human decisions should be determined in accordance with these gifts. Instinct may be a factor in these decisions, but it should not be the final determinant.

Again, this is correct, but reason does not necessarily proscribe us from following our instincts in this regard.

If we allow it to be so, we lower ourselves to the position of animals.

Are the monkeys from WillJ's thread human because they use reason and conscience in their final decisions, then?

To many people, that is completely acceptable. Animals mate, and I'm sure many humans would be content with a simple mating relationship. Well, fine, I won't punish you for it.

Good. Live and let live.

But as for me, I want a higher and more human connection: love. To attain it, I must raise myself above the animal.

I wish the same, but not necessarily all the time. While I want a true connection in a relationship, I can find pleasure in purely sexual relationships as well. Moreover, reason would require that the most benificial course of action be followed. If I am most pleased by sexual gratification, then reason would instruct me to follow my instincts (and to not follow them if you are not pleased simply by sex). There is no absolute in this case: it falls into the realm of the relative.

I have not always had this viewpoint, and in my past I have failed to raise myself above the animal. I knew base sexual relationships, and I found them wanting. I wanted complete human fulfillment, not just animal contentment, so I worked, and am still working, and will always work, to allow my human gifts to dictate my life, not my animal desires.

If you no longer want such a relationship, then reason would pronounce that you not engage in such relationships, but that does not mean that no person should do so. Animals can avoid instincts just like humans; it is only how often and perhaps how easily they can do so that makes the difference. Just because we disobey our instincts less does not make us more human (although it happens to be a common characteristic). If this were the case, then a person lacking instincts would be the most human creature possible, but such a being would be a machine, not a human. Certainly, reason is the highest faculty of man, as Aristotle
says, but if his instincts make one course of action more desirable than another, then it would be to deny reason to deny instincts necessarily, unless such denial is itself an "instinct" (not necessarily an instinct, but an extant feeling or belief).


Sorry if what I'm saying is a bit hard to understand.

 

[aneeshm]

Keirador, not that I want to dispute you but your linky can be turned on it's head. Depressed teens are more likely to seek sexual gratification. It goes with the territory

And , being depressed , are much less likely to get it .

 

[OrpheusPrime]

Yes and have done so on numerous occasions. Golden Rule though: use protection and lots of it. Saran wrap isnt overkill if its questionable.