I brought up date rape drugs only to firmly establish that there are circumstances in which using exogenous chemicals to obtain sex is unethical. I assumed that would be an example that wouldn’t be beyond anyone’s understanding. The testosterone/estrogen example is more apt, but I’m guessing most aren’t familiar with the role they play in sexuality and relationships.
I don’t think I ever implied that someone’s mind could be completely changed by a pheromone. But if they had no influence, then none of us would be interested in them. I’ve never implied that it’s always bad to use them. I do feel it’s worth stopping to think, “Should I be doing this?” before you go using them on someone though.
Regarding aesthetic enhancements, body language, psychology, etc. I’m not saying that using them is always okay. If you’re using them to try to sleep with someone’s wife, then I’d argue that it’s unethical to do so because it’s unethical to do that at all. But I still think pheromones are a bit different because they’re beneath conscious perception and therefore people do not have a chance to recognize that someone might be trying to influence them.
As was I, but my point, was the fact that pheromones give you an edge, similar to the edge you get when utilizing psychology to sleep with someone or making aesthetic changes and gaining an advantage in regards to attraction.
I assumed that point wouldn’t be beyond anyone’s understanding.
(Now, doesn’t that last part sound condescending, please do not use such language, it seems quite rude, and is unnecessary in a civil conversation)
It wasn’t meant to be condescending at all. Most people haven’t studied physiology, and therefore a lot of examples of chemicals that influence behavior would make no sense without a lot of explanation.
I don’t think the fact that pheros are beneath conscious perception makes a difference. A lot of things are beneath conscious perception, but still affect the decisions people make. The entire science of marketing is about this fact!
In the case of “someone who wouldn’t normally sleep with you”, would she not normally sleep with you because you’re not “her type” or because doing so would have negative consequences for her? In the former case, “her type” is just a belief about herself which generally has no basis in reality. In the latter, then sleeping with her is wrong no matter whether you did it with pheros or used some other method of influence.
I think a lot of people are unduly worried about influencing other people’s behaviour if they benefit as a result. As if it’s bad for you to want anything for yourself. Influencing people’s behaviour, done with respect for both your needs and theirs, isn’t bad: it’s leadership. God knows in these times we need more leaders!
I was avoiding opening that particular can of worms. Do you feel that using similarly imperceptible techniques in marketing is always ethical? I can think of some situations in which I don’t feel that it is. There are bans on deliberate use of subliminals in advertising, so it seems a lot of people would agree. I know it’s idealistic of me, but I really wish that marketing would rely more on hard, honest info about products rather than that type of technique. That’s a massive digression, though…
I don’t see a problem with using them to try to alter someone’s type, as long as your intent isn’t harmful to them. I’m more concerned about situations in which there might be negative consequences, whether they’re emotional or physical. In many cases, I agree that actions that pheromone-assisted actions that would be wrong would also be wrong without them. But they do seem to make certain grey areas even less clear.
Hmm, I’m not sure if a lot of people are unduly worried. I get the impression that most people are mainly hedonistic and don’t really want to give it much thought. But I certainly agree. If you act with genuine concern for the needs for others, then it’s very unlikely that whatever you’re choosing to do with pheromones is unethical.
“I’m not saying that using them is always okay. If you’re using them to try to sleep with someone’s wife, then I’d argue that it’s unethical to do so because it’s unethical to do that at all. But I still think pheromones are a bit different because they’re beneath conscious perception and therefore people do not have a chance to recognize that someone might be trying to influence them.” -fetus farm
“”“If you’re using them to try to sleep with someone’s wife, then I’d argue that it’s unethical to do so because it’s unethical to do that at all.”“”
This is not an ethics discussion, this is a discussion on morality which ethics are based upon.
Etymology: Middle English ethik, from Middle French ethique, from Latin ethice, from Greek ēthikē, from ēthikos
Date: 14th century
1plural but sing or plural in constr: the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation 2 a: a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> <an old-fashioned work ethic> —often used in plural but singular or plural in construction <an elaborate ethic**s><Christian ethic**s> bplural but sing or plural in constr: the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethic**s> c: a guiding philosophy d: a consciousness of moral importance <forge a conservation ethic> 3plural: a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness) <debated the ethic**s of human cloning>
1 a: a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b: a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson 2 a: a doctrine or system of moral conduct bplural: particular moral principles or rules of conduct 3: conformity to ideals of right human conduct 4:moral conduct :virtue
Your statements are not neutral, you are biased.
My research is private until published and not open to discussion on specifics.
He does have a point there, as long as we debate ethical implications, we are biased to some variable degree. Personal experience dictates our moral ‘compass’, if you will. It is a very personal issue. But, it seems that there is an internal conflict present, in your writing, when it comes to pheromones, if you have to ask yourself, every time before you use pheromones, “Should I be doing this?”, you really should consider that they might not be fit for your person.
I have to agree with Domnk, it seems you are trying to have all of us justify your use of pheromones. This is absurd.
Further more, none of what you have previously stated would required anything more than common sense and cause and effect rationalization. No psychology courses required.
Relating a ingested date rape drug or the act there of (which would be to cause someone to lose motor function to the point of blackout of loss of memory is a issue of intent and therefore the moral obstacles of action which would be the after effect of premeditation of said act.
Putting a substance in a drink to elicit an effect whereby the second party is rendered unconscious, is FAR FROM wearing a parfum on your SELF as a stimuli.
There are laws against malicious intent, drugging someone is malicious intent, wearing a parfum with intent to solicit a response is not guaranteed to elicit an effect.
I don’t think he does have a point. Nobody is truly unbiased, but it doesn’t follow that if you debate ethical implications you are therefore biased. I would agree that certain actions are purely matters of personal or cultural belief, but there are others that not a one of us would deny have universal, objective value. Ethical relativism is sometimes tempting to buy into, but it’s still nonsense.
Incase anyone isn’t familiar, ethical relativism is the general belief that actions do not have intrinsic value, but have meaning only in the context of the beliefs of the individual or culture who performs them.
That would, however, suggest that your personal beliefs do not have the potential to not influence your reasoning when it comes to morality, which ethics is based upon. This is not the case. You argue your point, which you believe to be true based on your reasoning, your experience, regardless of if you change your mind or not based on another argument, your doing so because it fits in the grand scheme of that which is your belief system.
I have to take issue with that statement, because that reasoning states that there are ‘universal’ concepts which are fundamental and permanently held by all cultures, that is not the case.
This is not true, because there comes a question when dealing with ethics, “Is it ‘ethical’ to have others follow a moral system which they themselves might not hold?”. By placing an ethical system in practice, you are thereby restricting the beliefs of others, whether those beliefs are conflicting to our own, in some way shape or form, we must ask ourselves, is the restriction of those rights, of any rights, moral, ethical. This is the gateway to which ethical relativism becomes plausible, becomes rational, from the ethical systems conflicting right, it’s paradoxical nature.
That is the only universal, paradox, and that is why nothing is universal.
hey i think after ive been using pheros a while ,it douse give you a slight edge ,but it cant change the way others feel and think about you. it affects the wearer 100% of the time for sure but ive noticed others only occasionaly notice any affects. i dont think its unethical or immoral, your not forcing anyone to do anything they wouldnt already do.. its not a magic formula its not love potion #9 thats a fairy tale! im a shy guy and on the heavy side and not the best of looks..i think pheros only minorly upgrade you ,so to speak thats it! it may affect the mood of a person but not the way they think act or beleive, its not realy mind altering at all, remember that and just have fun with them.i havnt had much success so far but its all in the attitude! it adds some confidence just knowing that you are wearing them,call it a placebo if you want but ive noticed on different days one day i wasnt wearing it and the others i were i see some improvement when wearing and when not. youl notice this also if you start the pheros. its all up to your beleifs ,if you feel its wrong just dont use them?know what i mean?
I’m not arguing that they’re held by all cultures. I’m arguing that certain actions have value that is independent of culture, and that certain cultures behave unethically. Genocide comes to mind.
In some cases, I would have to say yes, although we may be close to playing with the terms morality and ethics again. While the notion that we should be respectful of cultural differences has value (I argued for just that earlier in this thread,) there are certain lines that have to be drawn. Can you really make a case that genocide is okay if the culture or individual performing it believes it’s so? We could attempt to define exactly why it’s not based on several different objectivist systems, but it’d be an unending process.
To make sure it’s explicitly clear this time, this is all a digression that is purely theoretical and only seeks to establish agreement on a fundamental point as a basis for debating the topic at hand. I.e., we can’t debate whether pheromone use is unethical if we can’t first agree that anything is unethical, ever. So please nobody try to accuse me of comparing pheromone use to genocide.
My mission is to discuss a topic that’s interesting to me with others who also find it interesting, possibly gaining new insight or provoking thought in others in the process. If you’re not enjoying the thread, I kindly invite you to not read it.
FF, let’s meet for lunch. I’ll wear a secret mix that will make you do my bidding, because pheromones will cause you to lose all control and become my puppet.
It isn’t independent of culture, your reasoning is based on the fundamental values provided to you by your culture. Obviously, if other cultures disagree, it is not universal, and therefore not independent.
Yes, and attempting to define exactly why it is, provides the exact same result as attempting to define exactly why it is not. So, how can one be more definitively, intrinsically, more correct, than the other?
Do you believe that dj was ‘playing’ with terms, that morality and ethics is something other than what was stated?
I’m tired and not 100% sure it’s appropriate to further turn this into an ethical relativism vs. objectivism debate, but I’ll reply here or in PMs tomorrow.
To be blunt, dj seems more intent on junkyard dogging the forum than participating in the debate. But yes, he seemed to be either playing the semantics game or just being unclear in his comments on that.
Do you feel that using similarly imperceptible techniques in marketing is always ethical? I can think of some situations in which I don’t feel that it is. There are bans on deliberate use of subliminals in advertising, so it seems a lot of people would agree. I know it’s idealistic of me, but I really wish that marketing would rely more on hard, honest info about products rather than that type of technique. That’s a massive digression, though…
its not love potion