Should We Ban Porn?
vib.by/v/XJ329FZ__
But it can and has been made illegal. Flashing someone is “free expression” too, and is also illegal.
And we all know this.
The problem with the DEGRADING/DEFILING moral axis is that it DENIGRATES or DEFILES the SACRED.
He rightly says the real question is “Is sex sacred?”
He gives a remarkable answer:
"Is sex sacred? I don’t think we should treat it as if it ISN’T.”
vib.by/v/myF1AYWu_
But this is a PROBLEM for an ATHEIST.
Atheism ANNIHILATES the category of the SACRED, and THUS opens up all manner of DEGRADATIONS.
He seems not to be an atheist—but just as with moral objectivism, he has some IDEA that won’t let religion be a live option.
Also, he calls Jonathan Haidt’s moral FOUNDATIONS, moral TASTES. I’m not sure if that’s a revealing error or a revealing revision on Carl’s part.
It takes a sacred thing and throws dirt on it.
vib.by/v/myF1AYWu_
This is odd for someone who seems to have studied at least SOME of the ancients.
The idea that while you can’t hurt OTHERS, you CAN HURT YOURSELF.
Why? If it is wrong to do X to an innocent person and you are an innocent person …
2 You are an innocent person
3 ∴ it is morally wrong to kill yourself.
This is perfectly sound.
Here is how Carl puts the point, that self-harm is, after all, HARMING SOMEONE (you), and is morally suspect: vib.by/v/myF1AYWu_
If you own yourself absolutely to the point where you can destroy yourself, then you can obviously sell yourself as a slave.
One cannot be BOTH owner AND owned thing.
He even speaks of a “lesser human being.”
vib.by/v/myF1AYWu_