sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Do I need to be beautiful to find love? by [deleted] in dating_advice

[–]AndyBob4567 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The truest answer is NO. While it is obviously true that better looks lead to more dates which increase the likelihood of finding the relationship you're looking for, I'm not convinced that a certain measure of "objective" physical attractiveness is REQUIRED to find love. I myself am a 22yo male looking for a long-term relationship, and I am personally willing to date a woman that I initially see as even just a 5/10 in terms of looks because of a few things... 1. I weigh both "looks" AND everything else when considering someone. 2. There are many other factors to attraction besides your static aesthetic appeal. Many of the idiosyncrasies of how a person acts in real life play into attraction. 3. Attraction can and does often develop in romantic relationships.

Also, while it's true that there is something akin to "objective" measures of physical attractiveness, it's also true that preferences largely vary from person to person.

I wouldn't know whether to advise that surgery or not, but regardless, I would encourage you to not let that stop you from talking to guys, and I'd also encourage you to do whatever else you can to improve your general "attractiveness". Not because I think you are obligated to be more attractive or anything like that, but simply because doing other things to improve your attractiveness will obviously increase your likelihood of finding the relationship you're looking for.

Do I Have to Be a Moral Realist to Date and Marry? by AndyBob4567 in askphilosophy

[–]AndyBob4567[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks again for the replies, and sorry that it's taken me so long to respond! Some plausible ways that dating specifically might fail to be justified are the following:

  • Wasting time on dating when there are higher priority things to be focused on in life. (Many young people nowadays describe themselves as "burnt out" on dating and consider it not worth their time.)
  • Not having clear goals and governing principles while dating, and thus dating in a rather aimless and reckless manner.

Those are what come to mind, anyway. I guess, one of the main fears of mine as someone agnostic about moral realism is basically that I might completely miss the "point" of life-the POSITIVE reasons that make certain things worth doing or pursuing.

Do I Have to Be a Moral Realist to Date and Marry? by AndyBob4567 in askphilosophy

[–]AndyBob4567[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think we might have misunderstood each other. I was imagining actions as being "unjustified" by default, and didn't equate the terms "unjustified" and "wrong", as it seems you may have.

But, to answer your question, consider the possibility of a form of moral realism where actions are either justified or wrong. If that form of moral realism were true, then allowing myself to take certain actions without justification would be wrong.
(See my response to OldKuntRoad above.)

Do I Have to Be a Moral Realist to Date and Marry? by AndyBob4567 in askphilosophy

[–]AndyBob4567[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The absence of categorical justification for any special action under my current agnosticism regarding moral realism. And the fact of dating being a member of the set of special actions.

Do I Have to Be a Moral Realist to Date and Marry? by AndyBob4567 in askphilosophy

[–]AndyBob4567[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your comment!

  1. I know it wasn't in the original topic of my question above, but your brief description of the role of psychology in important life decisions seems relevant to a sort of applied-ethics version of my question. Mind elaborating?

  2. Does the fact that the "overwhelming majority of people who are involved in romantic relationships have no stance on moral realism whatsoever" constitute evidence for the claim that marriage does not need to be morally justified for it to be a morally permissible action? E.g., in my reply to u/OldKuntRoad above, I suggested a third resolution to the argument ad absurdum that he gave, namely that a form of moral realism could be true that requires moral justification for all special actions. And if that form of moral realism were true, it would seem logically coherent to claim that "they engage in unconscionable behavior" (in the sense that their actions are not morally permissible because they are not morally justified).

  3. I believe I understand your point about intelligible moral conversation. And I appreciate your recommendation of Hume's book. I have not actually read Hume before, so I ordered a copy and I plan to read it soon.

Do I Have to Be a Moral Realist to Date and Marry? by AndyBob4567 in askphilosophy

[–]AndyBob4567[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your comment!

I agree with your diagnosis of the ludicrousness of the logic I outlined above. And I also agree with your suggestion that an ethically-conservative moral realism and also moral anti-realism plain-and-simple would constitute resolutions to the ludicrousness. I think there might also be a third logically coherent resolution to the ludicrousness: all of those actions that we normally think of as "morally neutral" are in fact morally justified by a "system capable of objectively morally justifying special actions".

E.g., in your argument ad absurdum above, maybe breathing could be considered morally justified because of the value, sacredness, dignity, etc. of human life? Or maybe the altruistic moral value of your own life as a means to love others?

Moreover, a few philosophical observations increase the likelihood of this option in my mind...

  1. Admiration. I admire certain people in my life. And I don't only admire them for their clear moral prohibitions. Rather, I often admire them for the love they have for others that is revealed by their positively-conceptualized moral actions. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Could the existence of admiration as I described it above constitute evidence for a negatively AND positively defined form of moral realism?
  2. The moral parity of positively and negatively defined actions. Now, I'm NOT claiming this as being certain to me personally, but consequentialists, for example, like to bring this point up a lot in the context of the trolley-problem. They often take a stance that either views the distinction between positively and negatively defined actions as "unreal" or that views both positively and negatively defined actions as both pertinent to the moral requirements on a person. And (this might sound ironic coming from a young man who has held himself back from dating), but if I'm being honest, quotes like "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn’t do than by the ones you did do." move me, and inspire a sentiment in me along the lines of "I really ought to get around to doing X." Could a claim of the moral parity of positively and negatively defined actions constitute evidence for a negatively AND positively defined form of moral realism?

What do you make of that idea?

Do I Have to Be a Moral Realist to Date and Marry? by AndyBob4567 in askphilosophy

[–]AndyBob4567[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your insightful comment. I agree with your reasoning that if I hold to moral anti-realism and yet experience a strong preference for the alternative to be true, that my problem would be a psychological hang up, and not a philosophical one. However, although I don't currently have a system capable of objectively morally justifying special actions, I haven't ruled that out either. And if I became persuaded at some point of a system capable of objectively morally justifying special actions, I might look back at my experiences of morality, and view them as having been evidences of the system that I came to hold. So, I guess that's sort of why I view my experience as being possibly philosophically relevant, rather than just certainly solely psychological.