Should transgender people tell their sexual partners they are transgender?

[Alcon]

All moral norms are grounded in intuition. Is it your position that the field of morality itself should be abandoned?

If you have an intuitive distaste for yogurt, does it automatically render your disagreement a moral position?  How do you distinguish distaste from moral belief, if you do?

[A18]

The answer to the first question is certainly "no." But it is nonsensical to ask a person—me, or anyone else—how he distinguishes between two different types of perception.

What is it, for example, that separates sight from hearing? It is easy enough to distinguish between the processes that (in conjunction with our minds) yield those two things. But sight and hearing themselves cannot be described or differentiated in words.* We know that there is a difference; and intuitively, we all know precisely what it is. That, however, is all we can say. We run into the same problem if we try to distinguish between happiness and sadness; spiciness and sweetness; or greenness and orangeness.

In any case, I assume you think it's immoral to kill infants for fun. You probably also find some foods displeasing. Do you have any problem seeing one as an ethical standard, and the other as a personal taste?

* — To be more precise, it can't be expressed in words whose meanings are not dependent on our already being familiar with the concepts. "Visual perception" and "audial perception" are cop outs.

[Alcon]

The answer to the first question is certainly "no." But it is nonsensical to ask a person—me, or anyone else—how he distinguishes between two different types of perception.

...

In any case, I assume you think it's immoral to kill infants for fun. You probably also find some foods displeasing. Do you have any problem seeing one as an ethical standard, and the other as a personal taste?

And by what sense, even if it's intuitive, do you personally distinguish the two?  By what gives you a vague sense of "moral anxiety"?  Do you at all attempt to derive a standard "litmus test" from this (such as a preference for freedom) or do you just trust your raw, unprocessed moral intuition?  Because that's an intriguingly dynamic moral system, and makes the whole yogurt thing completely acceptable, since your distinction is entirely intuitive.

In fact, if you had rabies, water would suddenly become immoral.  And if any of these applications of your moral system bother you, your moral system itself is immoral.  (Having, not poking, fun)

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Yes, definitely.

[A18]

And by what sense, even if it's intuitive, do you personally distinguish the two?  By what gives you a vague sense of "moral anxiety"?  Do you at all attempt to derive a standard "litmus test" from this (such as a preference for freedom) or do you just trust your raw, unprocessed moral intuition?  Because that's an intriguingly dynamic moral system, and makes the whole yogurt thing completely acceptable, since your distinction is entirely intuitive.

In fact, if you had rabies, water would suddenly become immoral.  And if any of these applications of your moral system bother you, your moral system itself is immoral.  (Having, not poking, fun)

The point is that the feelings of "moral disgust" and "taste-related disgust," though clear to the human mind, cannot be described. Nor should I have to describe them; for as I said: "I assume you think it's immoral to kill infants for fun. You probably also find some foods displeasing. Do you have any problem seeing one as an ethical standard, and the other as a personal taste?"

My view is that we should start with dramatic, paradigmatic cases of immorality; and then cautiously work backwards, trying to discern what simple and otherwise intuitively plausible moral principles condemn such misbehavior.

[Alcon]

The point is that the feelings of "moral disgust" and "taste-related disgust," though clear to the human mind, cannot be described. Nor should I have to describe them; for as I said: "I assume you think it's immoral to kill infants for fun. You probably also find some foods displeasing. Do you have any problem seeing one as an ethical standard, and the other as a personal taste?"

How does that conflict with anything I said/asked?

My view is that we should start with dramatic, paradigmatic cases of immorality; and then cautiously work backwards, trying to discern what simple and otherwise intuitively plausible moral principles condemn such misbehavior.

I'm not sure in what sense you're using "paradigmatic."  Are you saying you prefer to take your intuitive sense of morality and then provide rational justifications for it?  Are you at all concerned that you may be restricting non-zerosum freedoms, or do you not believe that non-zerosum freedoms are of greater import than your moral intuitions that cannot be reduced to a systemic moral principle?  Unless you do not believe that is your responsibility to even bother considering, in which case hope the cultural tide doesn't turn against yogurt or whatev.

[A18]

You asked me to describe a sense, right after I explained that senses are indescribable.

Paradigmatic examples of evil would include the Holocaust, killing a man in order to steal his property, and "recreational" torture. Paradigmatic cases of immorality include all paradigmatic examples of evil, plus extreme instances of cowardice, dishonesty, laziness, etc.

By reflecting on these paradigmatic cases, we can form tentative conclusions about moral principles—laws that tell us whether an action is ethical or unethical. This is feasible only because we have an intuitive sense that certain moral distinctions are arbitrary, or quantitative rather than qualitative.

For the record, I have not recommended interfering with anyone's freedoms. I'm only concerned here with how we, as humans, should think about morality.

[Earth]

The point is that the feelings of "moral disgust" and "taste-related disgust," though clear to the human mind, cannot be described.

Of course they can be described. Moral positions are not inscribed within the mind such that they are inherent to the person holding them. You can describe both what you feel when confronted, and why you hold a certain view. You just choose not to describe why you hold a "moral" position that pertains to transsexualism. You could offer reasons why you find it "distasteful" or 'wrong', but instead you treat this as a trite philosophical problem. Pure sophistry.

[Alcon]

You asked me to describe a sense, right after I explained that senses are indescribable.

No, I asked you to describe your processing of the sense.  I'm not trying to be pedantic.  It's an important distinction I'm asking about, if it exists.

Paradigmatic examples of evil would include the Holocaust, killing a man in order to steal his property, and "recreational" torture. Paradigmatic cases of immorality include all paradigmatic examples of evil, plus extreme instances of cowardice, dishonesty, laziness, etc.

I'm pretty sure I understand what you're saying, but thanks for the further clarification.

By reflecting on these paradigmatic cases, we can form tentative conclusions about moral principles—laws that tell us whether an action is ethical or unethical. This is feasible only because we have an intuitive sense that certain moral distinctions are arbitrary, or quantitative rather than qualitative.

Seems to me that's the same thing as what I described -- finding rational justifications for intuitive senses.  If so, all of my questions and reductios ad absurdum stand...

For the record, I have not recommended interfering with anyone's freedoms. I'm only concerned here with how we, as humans, should think about morality.

You're completely right, I was extrapolating your position vaguely and ridiculously.  Sorry.

[A18]

It is true that some moral judgments can be reduced to a more basic moral principle. But the more basic moral principle is itself a product of intuition.

[Alcon]

It is true that some moral judgments can be reduced to a more basic moral principle. But the more basic moral principle is itself a product of intuition.

Right but that's still not answering any of my questions or scenarios

[John Dibble]

Answering the original question, yes they should. Relationships are about trust, and major things like that are something you should be forward with early on the the relationship. If a transgender person was to get deep in a relationship and the other person finds out one way or another, it would likely cause the relationship to end if the other person is not comfortable with it. It may even happen if the person would have otherwise been comfortable with it. It's best to get into a relationship where the other person's expectations are correct.

I do realize this would make the dating life of transgendered people rather difficult, but frankly that's just part of the risk in making the switch. Not everyone's going to be comfortable being in a romantic relationship with a transgendered individual, in fact I'd wager most people wouldn't be. Every choice has potential consequences, and that's just one of this particular kind of choice.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Something as important as this should probably be out in the open.  It seems like the main reason to not put it out there is because you're afraid you'll lose out on a sexual partner.

But if that's the case, should you be having sex with that person in the first place?

[A18]

It is true that some moral judgments can be reduced to a more basic moral principle. But the more basic moral principle is itself a product of intuition.

Right but that's still not answering any of my questions or scenarios

I was responding to that other guy; sorry for the ambiguity. What are your questions and scenarios?

[Rin-chan]

I think that it might be a good discussion to have if a transgendered person wanted to have children with someone who wasn't.  It it's possible, it would be different, and someone who wasn't transgendered might have a problem with that.  If it's just for sexual relations and not a long-term relationship, I don't see a reason why they should be required to let the other person know   Long-term, I think it would be something they should talk about. 

Rin-chan

[Alcon]

It is true that some moral judgments can be reduced to a more basic moral principle. But the more basic moral principle is itself a product of intuition.

Right but that's still not answering any of my questions or scenarios

I was responding to that other guy; sorry for the ambiguity. What are your questions and scenarios?

It was the jokey one, but I was trying to get at genuine points.

[A18]

Well, as I tried to explain, moral perceptions are a subset of negative feelings. A person who found water repulsive or frightening would not necessarily find it "immoral."

Your broader concern—that nothing guarantees the validity of our moral intuitions—is valid insofar as it goes. Of course, the same could be said of our memories and sensory experiences (how would we "test their accuracy," without relying on them?). We have no external reason either to trust or to doubt any of these three things.

I think our disagreement boils down to the burden of proof. The question, to me, is not whether our moral perceptions are reliable; I agree that we can't establish that they are. Instead, I'm convinced that some of them are properly "basic" beliefs.

[Alcon]

Well, as I tried to explain, moral perceptions are a subset of negative feelings. A person who found water repulsive or frightening would not necessarily find it "immoral."

Your broader concern—that nothing guarantees the validity of our moral intuitions—is valid insofar as it goes. Of course, the same could be said of our memories and sensory experiences (how would we "test their accuracy," without relying on them?). We have no external reason either to trust or to doubt any of these three things.

I think our disagreement boils down to the burden of proof. The question, to me, is not whether our moral perceptions are reliable; I agree that we can't establish that they are. Instead, I'm convinced that some of them are properly "basic" beliefs.

My question was whether you have any tests beyond raw intuitive proof, such as maybe to adjust for emotional prejudices that do not necessarily reflect a rational system or whose justifications seem to you more unlikely than an internalized "yogurt is icky" to me type deal.   And whether or not it makes you nervous how many things (slavery among others) have been justified that way since you seem to have taken public glee in this instance.  Answer "yes" and, seriously, I'll shut up

I actually agree with your last point and am mostly giving you crap on the assumption that living in perpetual self-loathing of one's own body is superceded by a vague sense of moral malaise, which apparently doesn't apply to the former item?  Because, I don't know, maybe you and I haven't personally experienced that?  And that could "poison" your prioritization when it comes to intuition, sense people tend to be 100x better with sympathy than empathy.

If you get my gist.

[minionofmidas]

They usually do, anyhow.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'd think it wouldn't be hard to figure it out on your own... but yes, they should tell the person.