I have a close friend who went through a bad break up with a guy and became a lesbian for about a year until she met another "Mr. Right" and now she's straight again.
Women seem far less hardwired than men. I don't know how much of this is nature (they were born that way, haha) vs. how much more accepting society is of female-on-female affection than male-on-male, therefore it's far less taboo. I suspect there's a lot of the latter. Maybe men will tend to be more bisexual and it will actually be a choice for many more men once society gets over the taboo, and it will. It's just a matter of time. I don't know though. This is just speculation. I don't know how much is nature vs. nurture.
Maybe it has to do with that scale somebody brought up, and where you fall on that scale can color your view of whether "you're just born that way" or "it was a choice." For example, I'm exactly 0% homosexual, from what I can tell, but some other guy might be perhaps 30%. As far as I'm concerned, I'm that way. The guy who's 30% (and the same place I heard this, apparently women's numbers tend to track higher, like "more bi") gets to choose, and both choices have some merit that can be weighed (aesthetically, I guess.) For me, I don't really see it as a choice. A guy who's "100% homosexual" doesn't really see any choice either. Don't know if that makes sense, exactly, but it's how I imagine it.
There are a lot of things one can do that are "wrong" but don't harm anyone.
That's why I was curious how you derive the meaning of "wrong" if it has nothing to do with causing harm, not even to one's self. I mean, right and wrong are fairly arbitrary notions to begin with, but how arbitrary they are seems to depend on how consistent you are in figuring them out.
I follow you, for the most part. When my ideas of right and wrong were handed down to me from someone else, there were more arbitrary, and didn't necessarily have anything to do with hurting anyone, using force, threat of force, fraud, etc. They were a matter of someone else's "law" (not necessarily legislation.) Now, I equate wrong, so far as I can tell, with nothing other than force, threat of force, or fraud. Isn't this sorta what the whole NAP business is about--a new basis for ethics?
People who've read enough Ayn Rand, I'd think, would be somewhat familiar with the idea of morals being exactly equal to right and wrong, and being defined as what's good for the human,
both as a person and as a species. Of course the NAP isn't exactly where she takes it, but the idea that there's a fundamental principle of write and wrong seems necessary to principled libertarians and objectivists, etc.
Sorry if that was sorta scattershot.
Then again...on the NAP and objectivist ethics, you could say something both true and hurtful to someone, and it seems like it could be confused with "wrong," or at least the sort of thing one "shouldn't do." Clearly, there are things that are not immoral according to those ethics systems could be "really shitty" at best. Makes you wonder if "being an asshole" is "wrong."
The Free Talk Live BBS
Author
Topic: Less Stephanie, Please (Read 149973 times)