Gay marriage and probabilities Gay marriage, states of the worl

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by jay santos

But it's still too difficult for me to swallow. I think there's a right and wrong in civil rights, and one has a responsibility to push for the right. So I can't agree with using the model to evaluate the issue. Or maybe I'm still not internalizing Pelagius' model.

Jay, I don't want to suggest that there aren't limitations and you certainly can't approach all problems from that perspective and it certainly has an ammoral component to it. However, I suspect some of the problem to applying this more broadly for many is the use of the language of marginal benefit and cost to talk about some very important things. Also, when I consider marginal benefit and costs I have a very broad notion of measuring benefits and costs. Things you call "right" or "wrong" have tremeduous value to you and many other people. I assume you would be willing to pay very high costs to maintain some of those things. In some cases you may be willing to give your live (which is probably worth at lest $5 Million). A social planner seeking to mazimizes societal welfare would clearly incorporate that.


And yes Jay is right that the issue is not about money and we can abstract from the problem of wealth constraints binding. That was just a convenient way to talk about things. What matters is happiness (utility). Waters passion and willingness to die for some causes can be valued correctly (at least conceputally) by the welfare mazimizing social planner.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Pelagius of OSU

Jay, I don't want to suggest that there aren't limitations and you certainly can't approach all problems from that perspective and it certainly has an ammoral component to it. However, I suspect some of the problem to applying this more broadly for many is the use of the language of marginal benefit and cost to talk about some very important things. Also, when I consider marginal benefit and costs I have a very broad notion of measuring benefits and costs. Things you call "right" or "wrong" have tremeduous value to you and many other people. I assume you would be willing to pay very high costs to maintain some of those things. In some cases you may be willing to give your live (which is probably worth at lest $5 Million). A social planner seeking to mazimizes societal welfare would clearly incorporate that.


And yes Jay is right that the issue is not about money and we can abstract from the problem of wealth constraints binding. That was just a convenient way to talk about things. What matters is happiness (utility). Waters passion and willingness to die for some causes can be valued correctly (at least conceputally) by the welfare mazimizing social planner.

I'm not talking about willingness to die. I'm talking about willingness to kill.

[pelagius]

Just so its clear, I don't necessarily think the individuals should approach things as the social planner. Individuals should consider the marginal benefits and costs they face.

I was trying to model why the church would come out in favor of prop 8. I think the church's decision to oppose or support more closely approximates the social planner problem. Also I wanted to give a rationale for why the church may still want to oppose gay marriage even if they are giving full and optimal weight to the increases in marginal utility (happiness) experienced by the representative gay couple. I hope that was clear.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm not talking about willingness to die. I'm talking about willingness to kill.

Still not a problem. The social planner can take into account the welfare loss in this case as well (which, of course would be huge not only because of the direct loss of life but its affect on other aspects of society).

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by KneeJerk

Let's not forget that a eugenicist is also a 'social planner' who weighs people's core human traits in his moral calculus.

Yes, that's a fair comparison to what I am talking about. Also, you've already referred to my approach as disingenuous. So I sense a tendency to view what I have written here about two standard deviations worse than it actually is (note, this is not to suggest you have been mean or disrespectful, you have been fine). As such I will bow out.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by KneeJerk

Please forgive my use of the word 'disingenuous.' It was poorly chosen. But really, you can't give a single example, other than gay marriage, in which it would be appropriate to deny a person a civil right based on a core human trait? This is a sincere question. I ask it assuming I am missing some obvious example. But you can't even provide one other example?

Pretty please.

Maybe I missed this, but did the notion that marriage is a human right and sexual orientation is a core human trait pass by acclamation?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by KneeJerk

Marriage is unarguably a civil right, and yes, sexual orientation, is a core human trait. Consider your own sexual orientation. Would you seriously argue that it isn't a key part of who you are? Would the prospect of a sexless life not concern you to the core?

As tempting as it is to wade into this topic with you, especially in light of the standard you are espousing (concern me to the core?), I must admit it has all been done before here and, quite honestly, I just don't have it in me anymore. Others may choose to go, I will linger and watch.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by KneeJerk

Whether someone else considers one's sexual orientation a core human trait is beside the point. People define their own core human traits. The ability to do so should be enshrined as a 'principle right.' If someone identified himself as black, but you thought he looked too pale, but maybe a little bit black, would you feel justified in calling that person out?

I wish that everyone would forget gay marriage for a moment and someone answer the question-- is there any other civil right that can be ethically denied to a country's citizens based on core human traits? Or does marriage stand alone in this category of civil rights?

We each get to decide what our core human traits are? Really? And having done so society should bend to accommodate them? If this is what you mean, I can come up with a lot of examples that meet your test.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by KneeJerk

Go ahead. Please realize that I am talking about human beings here, and I have already pointed out that age is an acceptable trait for discrimination (thus avoiding the two lamest arguments against gay marriage: bestiality and pedophilia).

ANd why is age acceptable, then? I need to understand that limitation. ALso, at what age do we allow one to determine theiur own core concerns and whay at that age?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by KneeJerk

Because we don't release babies into the wild if their mothers abandon them. I don't think we need to argue about that, do we? So we collectively choose certain ages at which people are are expected to be responsible enough to accept the responsibility of civil rights. We can debate and adjust those milestones to reflect science, reason, social standards, whatever, but that rights should be conferred according to age seems to be simple common sense.

Well now I am confiused. If we adjust these milestones by science, reason and social standards, then they are not entirely subjective, correct?