From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: the moral is there is no moral
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:52:38 GMT

Gads, I've written a tome.

the valley of the fuzz-tone guitar <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET> writes:
>So, then, doing unsafe things is immoral.  Psychological problems are
>immoral (or maybe just making them worse is immoral)...hmmm...nope, I still
>don't get it.

I think that doing unsafe things with no good reason is immoral, yes.
And, well, hang on about the psychological problems part.  I need to
think... (thinking...)

O.k.  Obviously, HAVING a psychological problem is not immoral.  It is
a medical condition.  But, given that one has a psychological problem,
it is wise (moral) to do something about it... IF YOU CAN.  I suppose
that the HAVING of a psychological problem is just the sort of thing
that might prevent one from acting to do something about it, though.

Suppose I were deathly terrified of going to the doctor.  This would
be a psychological problem which endangers my health for no good
reason.  IF I am in control of myself enough to do so, I ought to
do whatever I can to overcome my psychological problem (the doctor
phobia).  Of course, if I'm so wigged out about it that I can't
even start to think about it, then there isn't much I can do, eh?
But if I can do something, I ought to do something.

>It certainly isn't hard to figure out how being homosexual in this
>society could cause one some serious mental stress.  I have
>to question the notion that if someone's psychological problems are
>being made worse by the reactions to the way they choose to live, then
>the way one lives must be immoral.

I agree with you completely.  That isn't at all the sort of thing
I had in mind.  Let's reverse the example a bit.

Suppose that some people (as it is often claimed) just ARE homosexual.
That is, they have a desire for sex with other members of the same
sex, and (for whatever reason) they just can't do anything about it.
We could suppose that hormone levels control it... or we could just
suppose that a lifetime buildup of previous value choices just makes
it impossible to reasonably expect change.  

So we have (for our example) a person who just IS homosexual.  Let's
suppose that they feel comfortable with that, and let's suppose that
they choose to seek out a stable, long-term relationship.

Now... in THIS case, it seems to me that it would be immoral (psychologically
self-destructive) to try to 'fake' a heterosexual lifestyle.  This would
require an enormous evasion of one's own inner states.  If our example
person was trying to live a lifestyle just because it would be more
accepted by others, then he is choosing (unwisely) to derive his own
self-esteem from the value-judgements of others... always a dangerous
thing to do.

O.k., I hope that part made sense, because now I'm going to return
to the original example.

Suppose we have a person who is living a homosexual lifestyle, but
who hates herself for it... who feels guilty all the time.  Suppose
that this person has chosen the homosexual lifestyle because (suppose)
her earliest experiences with men (perhaps as a child) were 
disastrous... a rape or some such.  (By the way, I have no idea
how often people become homosexuals along this route.  But suppose it
has happened at least once...)

I think that a person in THIS condition should recognize that her
lifestyle is causing deep inner conflict resulting in great psychological
damage.  They should do SOMETHING about it.  Just continuing along in
a self-hating lifestyle isn't good.  

The choices are to either come to terms with homosexuality and then
feel good about that... or to recognize that the homosexual behavior
is the result of traumatic experiences and to come to terms with that
and (perhaps) return to heterosexuality.

My point is that I *do* think that a large number of homosexuals
feel guilty and have a large amount of self-doubt and self-hate.
This is psychologically damaging.  To the extent that they can
do something about it, it is moral for them to do so.

My political point was that it is perfectly possible to say that
many homosexuals are being immoral, while at the same time holding
that NOTHING follows from this in the political realm.

>Consider: I, like you, am an atheist.  Suppose I get a lot of flak for
>choosing to not believe in a deity, which aggrevates a tendency towards
>depression.  Am I immoral, then, for living an atheistic lifestyle?

No, of course not.  *grin*  (The Morality Czar decrees.)

Your choice is moral because you have decided that your basic means
of survival is reason, and that you ought not to give up your intelletual
independence.

How much greater is the mental pain of a person who UNDERSTANDS that
there is no evidence for the existence of any gods, but who ACCEPTS
their existence from peer pressure?  I think that even the Christians
on the list will agree that one ought not to belive in God just because
one's friends do!

--Jimbo


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU