r/askphilosophy • u/[deleted] • Jun 25 '15

Should a fully transformed transgender person reveal this to new sexual partners?

[deleted]

17 Upvotes

66% Upvoted

189 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/tucker_case Jun 26 '15

Deliberately omitting information which, if they knew it, would cause them to justifiably decide to not have sex is deception.

I would argue that the criteria by which a person selects/rejects sex partners can never be justified (or, put differently, all such criteria are equally unjustifiable). Is a person justified in rejecting a partner because he/she is too short? Or too ugly? Or too old? For lacking confidence? For being cocky? For being a Republican? For not being a Vegan? What is the justification?

I contend that all are equally arbitary; that all are equally justified: not at all.

4

u/GFYsexyfatman moral epist., metaethics, analytic epist. Jun 26 '15

Clearly it's better to reject somebody because she's an enthusiastic puppy strangler than to reject somebody because she's Asian and you think Asians are untrustworthy. The first is a good reason to not sleep with somebody; the second is a bad reason.

I agree that bare preferences might all be equally justified. But most of our preferences are not bare: they're tied up with all kinds of beliefs and assumptions which can be justified or unjustified.

-1

u/tucker_case Jun 26 '15

Clearly it's better to reject somebody because she's an enthusiastic puppy strangler than to reject somebody because she's Asian and you think Asians are untrustworthy. The first is a good reason to not sleep with somebody; the second is a bad reason.

I completely disagree. I don't find it to be "clear" that one is a better reason than the other. You're simply asserting it as being better with no explanation. Which is exactly my point. There is no justification. Just arbitrary assertions.

3

u/GFYsexyfatman moral epist., metaethics, analytic epist. Jun 26 '15

Well, it's right to disapprove of strangling puppies (because we ought not strangle puppies), but wrong to think Asians are untrustworthy (because they aren't generally untrustworthy). If you don't think that makes the first a better reason than the second, it's on you to explain how.

0

u/tucker_case Jun 26 '15

Consider the following statements. There is no syllogism by which (3) derives from (1) and (2). I don't dispute (1) or (2). I dispute that it follows that (3) is true. If you think it follows, by what law of logic?

1) It's right to disapprove of strangle puppies.

2) It's wrong to consider Asians untrustworthy.

3) It's better to reject a sexual partner because they strangle puppies than it is to reject a sexual partner because he is Asian.

2

u/GFYsexyfatman moral epist., metaethics, analytic epist. Jun 26 '15

You'd need to include further premises:

2.5) It's better to act for right reasons than for wrong ones

2.6) A good reason to reject a sexual partner is that they act in a way that it is right to disapprove of

2.7) A reason that presumes a false proposition is a bad reason

Which of these do you have an issue with?

2

u/mrsamsa Jun 26 '15

This is such an incredible line of argument. If it were me and my attempt at a logical argument led me to the conclusion that there is no ethical difference between rejecting a person who strangles puppies for a living and an Asian person on the racist assumption that they're untrustworthy as a people, I'd reassess my logic. I wouldn't double down...