RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceReader Comments
Keeping morality in Princeton, but out of the classroom
Published: Wednesday, September 30th, 2009
In a column last Thursday, Brandon McGinley wrote that Princeton students are “squeamish …about asserting substantive moral goods.” I agree with one of McGinley’s points, that people are sometimes afraid to make firm claims for fear of offending. Neither ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
As one who would not eat veal during gay sex, I believe I can speak for both Brandon and Sam.
No class I am aware of professes to tell you what is right or wrong– only how to determine such questions of morality for oneself. Princeton is fortunate to have professors that do not preach their own opinions to their students as fact. We have an EM requirement, clashes of moral views usually lead to some of the best and most genuine precepts you'll ever have.
"On the one hand, I find many of their positions offensive and downright ridiculous."
This is the main problem of liberals: instead of reasonably debating the issues carefully and trying to understand the framework of the opposition's argument, they just brush things off as nonsense or "downright ridiculous."
What if I was brought up in a cannibalist society, and humbly hold the belief that eating human meat is good? Am I wrong to hold these beliefs?
"After humbling myself a bit and considering Anscombe’s and related arguments, I’m more convinced than ever that the universe doesn’t care where we put our penises."
best closing line ever. even though anscombe is given WAY too much publicity, this was a good article.
Haha, if the universe doesn't care where we put our penises, why does it care if we eat or torture animals either? Nice logic.
@Loophole:
Gay sex, as long as it's consensual, doesn't hurt living beings. Torturing animals does.
@pencil:
Why is that inherently wrong? Since killing animals has been necessary for human survival it is as wrong as reproduction inherently is.
For the love of all things good and true, people need to stop complaining that their opponents' views are "offensive." It's much more constructive to claim that their views are "wrong," followed by reasons justifying the claim. The people in Anscombe are run-of-the-mill Princeton students in many ways, and as such, are smart, open to dialogue, and open to disagreement. People need to be more tolerant of them, especially considering the dominance liberal causes have on Princeton's campus. Do you really want to have an all-liberal student body with not intellectual diversity?
@Sigh: Killing animals isn't categorically necessary for human survival anymore. In many cases, it may actually run contrary to the pursuit (of which you seem to approve) of human well-being, i.e. in some nutritional, many ecological, and most any climatological spheres. Things change. Humans are sometimes very bad at changing, though, which will probably operate to our ultimate detriment.
I found the end of this article somewhat contrary to its purported intent, which (as I understood it) is to stimulate some kind of respectful, mutually invigorating dialogue between opposing points of view. In that sense, I agree with alum9. Let's start actually talking about the issues.
The critical debates on these two issues - homosexuality and animal rights - would be so wildly different from one another. So far as I can tell, the former debate is suspended almost entirely in social norms: what is sex for? (Assumed answer: procreation and spiritual union in the context of marriage.) What is marriage for? (The proper education and socialization of the next generation.) What constitutes "proper education and socialization of the next generation?" (That is something we could really argue about.)
On the other hand, I feel like there needs to be a basis for the inclusion of a being on our list of things we should not kill or torture. Why do we say it is wrong to kill or torture a being? I've heard "it feels pain" the most, I think, but I'm not sure about that as a criterion. We could construct an AI that would alert itself to bodily damage and thereby compel itself to rest or repair - or "feel pain" - but would we value it like a human? Is there another, possibly better criterion of which this author is unaware?
well if you're worried about harming "living beings" then you better not rub your hands together for fear of killing bacteria. and think of all the plants people eat and the paper that comes from trees. don't give me any "they can't feel pain" crap either because the basis of morality does not hinge on a single factor of the presence or absence of pain receptors.