Where is the line between a disorder and else?

First of all, I am not a troll. I know people on forums love to accuse someone of being a troll when a controversial topic is presented.I have a philosophical dilemma that I can't solve for myself. At what point should we stop calling it natural and begin calling it a disorder?Not too long ago, someone like me was labeled as socially deviant simply because I'm partnered with another man. Not too long ago, I was partnered with a transgendered person. If this was 50 years ago, he/she would have been hung and burned. So, I'd call it progress that people like us are no longer persecuted by the scientific community. I say that because there are still people who associate my partner and I to pedophilia, and they make sure we hear them when we're around.The dilemma I have is what about body integrity identity disorder? My common sense tells me that it is natural for me to be gay but it is not natural for a person to want to amputate a limb or two. But philosophically and morally who am I to tell them there is something wrong with them?Right now, if I want to be consistent with my principles, I'd have to say that if you want to chop off one of your hands then go right ahead. But this conflicts with my common sense.Wanna help me out of this moral maze? If I don't resolve this issue, my head will explode.

Why be consistent? Why not treat each issue as a separate and unique issue?

Because without consistency we can make up any bullshit we want. Take a look at the black community. After having struggled for their rights for generations, they have been the most intolerant group towards gay people. Things are getting better, but they as a group continue to lag behind everyone else.

We can always make up a justification for what we want, but consistency often leads to very, very stupid ends.

Why cannot it be both?I don't see a conflict between something being natural, yet a disorder.To give a simple example, my hypertension is completely natural, yet I have no problem saying that it is a disorder. Nature has it's own natural way of handling hypertension, namely death. I take my prescribed medication, which is an unnatural way of handling it.So, back to BIID. What would not seem natural for me can be quite natural for somebody with that disorder. Nature has its own way of coping. A person born blind finds his blindness quite natural, while a seeing person who lost sight later in life would find that very unnatural.I would be inclined to say that BIID is abnormal, but not unnatural. We judge "normal" by what is common, and BIID falls outside of normal.On the question of whether a disorder, it seems to me that the person with BIID does see it as a disorder, and the desire for amputation is an indication that the person would like to correct the disorder however he/she could.

That's exactly what a troll would say! I don't really care if we call it "natural" or "a disorder" or whatever.
It sounds to me like your question is more along the lines of "should I do what I can to prevent them from amputating a limb or two? Or should I accept that this is something they feel is important and necessary and not stand in their way?"Which is a very interesting question.Personally, I'm a proponent for the personal option of suicide. I don't think it should be totally taboo. I think that if I want to end my life, I should be able to make that choice.
Now... that doesn't mean I think all suicides should be deemed "right"... I think there are a lot of factors at play.
I believe it comes down to being of "sound mind."If you can rationally, objectively judge your circumstances and suicide is the option you want to pursue... then I think it should be just fine.Like if I'm old, and my wife had died, and I have no kids, and I don't owe anyone any money, and my personal finances are running out, and I have done all I wanted to do in life, and I am ready to end this existence.
Then I don't see a problem with suicide and, in fact, I think it's stupid if someone actually does have a problem with suicide in this sort of scenario.But... let's say I'm 35, and I have 4 kids depending on my income in order to survive. And I'm a very large part of my extended family unit... and I have all sorts of other obligations and responsibilities... then I don't think suicide should be a valid option.I think that BIID should be viewed in the same way.We are people, and we should be able to do what we want with our bodies... being of sound mind.
We first have to look at our obligation and responsibilities first.If the person can look at their situation rationally and objectively and see the following:
-there is a plan to take care of themselves after removing the limbs
-they do not have certain obligations or responsibilities which removal of the limbs will cause them to be unable to fulfill
-they understand this is a permanent solution and cannot be 100% reversed
Then, I have no problems with it and I actually do have a problem with anyone blocking their right to do what they want with their body.
I think they should also listen to other people's objections (if anyone has any) and see if those objections are valid or not.But there's another side to the situation as well.
-does the person have a chemical imbalance in their brain that may be affecting their state of mind?
-does the person have obligations or responsibilities that cannot be fulfilled if the limbs are removed?
-is this a rash decision that has come up quickly?
There are many situations where the answers to these questions will be "yes"... if so, then I think it's fine to do what you can to prevent any amputations and try to help the person in other ways.

And rightly so. Choping ones limbs off on purpose is bat shit crazy.Common sense creatures tend to survive longer to pass on common sense genes.In the case of homosexuals this would possibly be accomplished by artificial insemination. Oh theres that word artificial? Does that mean un-natural?This presents a whole other can of worms to unravel. Like is altering our body chemistry with medications to combat our naturally occuring disease processes going "against nature?"Nah,
Choping off ones limbs is a disorder but is still natural as cancer.
Both are not in the best interest of the organism in my opinion.

delete duplicate postEdited by 1.61803, : duplicate post

I think so too. I agree with this as well.I would just also add the point that your opinion (and mine) don't mean jack shit when talking about someone else's best interests.

That's actually his point.

Because ad hoc arguments are rightly not much admired.

And inconsistency doesn't?Consistency is not the problem. The rules being consistently adhered to are. A consistent valuation of human life is a good thing and disallows racism and other similar problems. Inconsistent, arbitrary determinations on who or what carries moral worth is what leads to making arbitrary exceptions over things like skin color.

Rules are often the problem. Sorry but that is simply empty words and of no use or value. A great example is that during slavery there was a consistent valuation of human life. Slaves were not humans and just property.Both inconsistency and consistency can be good or bad; it's time to stop putting value on "consistency" and start thinking beyond rules.

Our moral imperative is to prevent people from hurting themselves because of psychological issues. Amputations brush up against that moral imperative. Being gay does not. You are harming no one, and are in fact improving your life by being involved in relationships that enrich your life.The other problem you seem to be having is that you are confusing two different usages of the word "natural". There is natural as in how nature operates, and also natural as in how something usually operates to the benefit of the body. Those two are not the same.

How absurd. The problem was not the consistent application, but the exception made. It's like you're assaulting a logically sound argument, when the real problem is one of its required assumptions. Obviously a consistent valuation of human life is ineffective if actual humans are considered not-human - but that's not a flaw with the principle of consistency. Quite the opposite - it means there is another rule, that which determines who is and who is not human, which was not being followed consistently, and that was the problem.Human morality has advanced in large part by establishing basic ethical rules and extrapolating consistently from them. People realized racism was bad because it involves treating some people differently, being inconsistent in the value of human beings because of arbitrary differences like skin color. The expansion of our circles of ethical concern to make our treatment of others to be more consistent with how we ourselves like to be treated."Thinking beyond rules" is just a way of saying "I'll go with whatever I feel at the time."Rather, we should be analyzing the rules we make, and deciding whether those rules should be kept or changed, or if we're adhering to them consistently.