Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Familial Ties

royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 7:36:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Conventional wisdom teaches us that familial ties give us special moral obligations to the people we share genes with. Usually this is for practical considerations. Since society currently adheres to a family model of living, if the family unit is not cohesive, it crumbles and strands the individuals within it.

As a moral cosmopolitan, I reject the notion that I have involuntarily moral bonds to individuals simply because I share characteristics with them. If all beings are equal, there should not be any involuntary attachments that constrain me and bind me to these individuals.

Can you defend giving special consideration to family? No appeals to emotion, please.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 7:56:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Can I 'defend' it? Here's a better question: can it be avoided? Evolution instills a psychological tendency to bond with those close to us genetically because they share many of our genes. It's an innate human trait. You could never get rid of it even if it is irrational.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 8:10:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 7:56:38 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Can I 'defend' it? Here's a better question: can it be avoided? Evolution instills a psychological tendency to bond with those close to us genetically because they share many of our genes. It's an innate human trait. You could never get rid of it even if it is irrational.

Some people do not bond well with individuals who share genes with them. Even if it is true (it isn't: there is no intrinsic reason that it is true; it's imposed on us by society), it does not mean it is morally correct.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 8:17:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 7:36:53 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Conventional wisdom teaches us that familial ties give us special moral obligations to the people we share genes with. Usually this is for practical considerations. Since society currently adheres to a family model of living, if the family unit is not cohesive, it crumbles and strands the individuals within it.

As a moral cosmopolitan, I reject the notion that I have involuntarily moral bonds to individuals simply because I share characteristics with them. If all beings are equal, there should not be any involuntary attachments that constrain me and bind me to these individuals.

Can you defend giving special consideration to family? No appeals to emotion, please.

This is wrong for so many reasons. I'd give them but I'd never hear the end of your fallacious counterarguments.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 8:22:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 8:17:33 AM, MouthWash wrote:
At 6/19/2012 7:36:53 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Conventional wisdom teaches us that familial ties give us special moral obligations to the people we share genes with. Usually this is for practical considerations. Since society currently adheres to a family model of living, if the family unit is not cohesive, it crumbles and strands the individuals within it.

As a moral cosmopolitan, I reject the notion that I have involuntarily moral bonds to individuals simply because I share characteristics with them. If all beings are equal, there should not be any involuntary attachments that constrain me and bind me to these individuals.

Can you defend giving special consideration to family? No appeals to emotion, please.

This is wrong for so many reasons. I'd give them but I'd never hear the end of your fallacious counterarguments.

LOL, ok.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 8:34:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 8:22:25 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/19/2012 8:17:33 AM, MouthWash wrote:
At 6/19/2012 7:36:53 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Conventional wisdom teaches us that familial ties give us special moral obligations to the people we share genes with. Usually this is for practical considerations. Since society currently adheres to a family model of living, if the family unit is not cohesive, it crumbles and strands the individuals within it.

As a moral cosmopolitan, I reject the notion that I have involuntarily moral bonds to individuals simply because I share characteristics with them. If all beings are equal, there should not be any involuntary attachments that constrain me and bind me to these individuals.

Can you defend giving special consideration to family? No appeals to emotion, please.

This is wrong for so many reasons. I'd give them but I'd never hear the end of your fallacious counterarguments.

LOL, ok.

Lol, indeed. You told me about how you weren't obsessed with the subject. I randomly went to the philosophy forum, and there you are, ranting about how families are illogical and wrong. GTFO
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 8:36:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 8:34:23 AM, MouthWash wrote:
At 6/19/2012 8:22:25 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/19/2012 8:17:33 AM, MouthWash wrote:
At 6/19/2012 7:36:53 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Conventional wisdom teaches us that familial ties give us special moral obligations to the people we share genes with. Usually this is for practical considerations. Since society currently adheres to a family model of living, if the family unit is not cohesive, it crumbles and strands the individuals within it.

As a moral cosmopolitan, I reject the notion that I have involuntarily moral bonds to individuals simply because I share characteristics with them. If all beings are equal, there should not be any involuntary attachments that constrain me and bind me to these individuals.

Can you defend giving special consideration to family? No appeals to emotion, please.

This is wrong for so many reasons. I'd give them but I'd never hear the end of your fallacious counterarguments.

LOL, ok.

Lol, indeed. You told me about how you weren't obsessed with the subject. I randomly went to the philosophy forum, and there you are, ranting about how families are illogical and wrong. GTFO

I wasn't ranting about anything. I was asking a pertinent question. If you don't like my threads, you don't have to read them or post in them.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2012 8:48:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm with Kinesis, and moral theories that accommodate these familial bonds probably do them for the practical reasons he explained. It's just one of those facts of human nature, but yes, if you're viewing it with the goal of universal brotherhood in mind then familial bonds do stand as an obstacle.
Websterremembered
Posts: 95
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 10:37:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/19/2012 7:36:53 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Conventional wisdom teaches us that familial ties give us special moral obligations to the people we share genes with. Usually this is for practical considerations. Since society currently adheres to a family model of living, if the family unit is not cohesive, it crumbles and strands the individuals within it.

As a moral cosmopolitan, I reject the notion that I have involuntarily moral bonds to individuals simply because I share characteristics with them. If all beings are equal, there should not be any involuntary attachments that constrain me and bind me to these individuals.

Can you defend giving special consideration to family? No appeals to emotion, please.

Logic dictates that for a species to survive, indeed to evolve they must preserve their life and do what is necessary to advance the spices; thus we have villages, towns, forts, army/militia, police, ect putting down roots historically would help an individual belong to the group and would establish a family to provide for them when old. As for a moral argument, what makes family loyalty right or wrong, order makes it right, a family unit for the most part works better when they realize this simple principle, having a dependable group is better than going it alone. Yes one can and should in all likelihood make a family of their own, the question I ask is, where would this leave you?