Beards and Gay Marriage

[Prodigal_Son]

I’ve no problem with that. But your constitution (and mine) separates the state from the church. If you have an objection to something and enter into a discussion about it, then arguments that devolve purely from biblical passages (especially Leviticus for heaven’s sake) are just not acceptable. Government is, whether you like it or not, a secular organisation and any changes that you might want to existing laws, or any new laws that you would like to see enacted will be, by definition, debated from a secular viewpoint.

Of course, there is nothing in law that prevents a person or a legislator from arguing for a position using their religious beliefs. You know that, and yet you are presenting the “separation of church and state” as if it meant that religious beliefs had no place in politics. I don’t understand why you are doing that.

As to whether such argument is effective, that differs from case to case. Lincoln’s argument that the equality of all men under God demanded release from slavery was pretty effective. (And entirely religious: there is no other sort of decent argument for the political equality of all people.)

Some people attempt this with rather risible results. How many times have you seen someone on this forum exclaim that homosexuality is a recognised medical disorder? It doesn’t matter how many times you point out that not one reputable organisation in any civilised country on the planet agrees with that (including such bastions of gay rights as China!), it is simply ignored. It becomes ‘fingers-in-the-ear time’.

Sure. And it will become fingers in the ear time when you hear my above claim that all decent arguments for equality come from religion. :sad_yes:

So if you want to change a law or introduce one that will, for example, disallow gay couples to adopt, then quoting scripture and repeating the mantra that ‘it’s unnatural’ will get you just about as far as you have to date. And that is apoint where an increasingly number of people realise that there is no valid secular argument to be had.

Of course, I myself have not talked about it being “unnatural” nor have I quoted Scripture. My argument has been entirely secular: that we have seen, for centuries, the benefits of having a mom and a dad. I think it is wrong to deny children a mom or a dad intentionally.

I’ll skip on you mentioning the fact that some might like to make gay sex illegal after suggesting that no-one is trying to dictate what others should do…

I don’t believe I ever said “no one” wanted to dictate this. Some people certainly do.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Originally Posted by Peter Plato
Your notion of God seems to be a liberal democrat in the sky whose highest goal for humanity is narcissistic self-absorption.

Sounds like someone who’d get my vote.

Sounds like a whiny, smarmy little snot who has to get his/her own way and couldn’t put up with the least amount of discomfort for the sake of others. S/He can have your vote, if you see such a decrepit little being who can’t get beyond his/her own burnt out ashes as leadership material.

 

[Bradski]

Disordered urges must be overcome.

Natural urges which you consider to be disordered. There’s a world of difference.

Well, only in the same way that saying, “Math is the rules of the mathematicians but I don’t have to play by those rules.”

Well it’s not in the same way at all. What you are saying is the equivalent of saying (to continue your maths example) that the only rules you must follow in geometry are those based on Euclidian geometry. Nothing else exists, as far as you are concerned, so you have to ‘play by those rules’. Which isn’t the case.

Christianity is not the only game in town when it comes to developing a moral outlook.

Why do you think that this means that there’s something wrong with the Rules rather than the people who don’t follow the rules?

I don’t believe (obviously) that all your rules are the correct ones. You’re the one who has to follow them so it’s up to you to decide if there’s something wrong with them. As you know, people don’t follow bad laws.

And in the closing time example, you’d have a hard time persuading me that drinking before midnight is morally acceptable and drinking after midnight is not. It cannot be said that the law is to prevent drunkenness because there are laws already that punish that and indeed there’s nothing to stop you getting drunk before midnight.

Where I was brought up there were different closing times in different areas. There was a village near where I lived where the county boundary ran through the middle of the town so on one side of the street it was against the law to drink on a Sunday and on the other side it was quite acceptable. Was everyone on the one side more immoral than those on the other on one particular day of the week?

 

[Bradski]

False: If a thing is immoral, it should therefore be illegal.
True: If a thing is illegal, its illegality must be because of some potential for immoral harm (however remote).

So no, I wouldn’t make any of the things you mentioned illegal, with the possible exceptions of abortifacient contraceptives and the publishing/manufacture of porn. Oh, and I think no-fault divorce should be illegal – though not retroactively so – and that cheating on a spouse should be grounds for a divorce.

We’re mostly on the same page here. And to clarify, when I say that laws are not based on morality per se, I mean that they are not necessarily based on morality in the first instance. It is conceivable that you could extrapolate any given law to reach a moral position, however tenuous.

Of course, there is nothing in law that prevents a person or a legislator from arguing for a position using their religious beliefs. You know that, and yet you are presenting the “separation of church and state” as if it meant that religious beliefs had no place in politics. I don’t understand why you are doing that.

I mean arguing a position purely on religious grounds. ‘This must be so because it is written’. Religious beliefs must be backed up by secular arguments. I don’t think anyone is likely to pass a law simply because you quote scripture. It may be applicable, but if there is no secular reason for passing legislation, then it doesn’t get passed. At least, not in modern Western states.

As to whether such argument is effective, that differs from case to case. Lincoln’s argument that the equality of all men under God demanded release from slavery was pretty effective. (And entirely religious: there is no other sort of decent argument for the political equality of all people.)

Now that is something about which you are going to have a very hard time indeed convincing me.

Sure. And it will become fingers in the ear time when you hear my above claim that all decent arguments for equality come from religion. :sad_yes:

You just said ‘no other arguments’ and now you crank that back to ‘all decent arguments’. I won’t agree with the first, but the second has some merit. As long as you concede that there are other methods of reaching the same conclusion.

You must accept that you cannot claim sole rights to any moral position simply because it is a position that is an accepted part of your religious beliefs. We don’t kill and steal because it says we must not do those things in the bible. We don’t kill and steal for very good reasons AND it also says so in the bible. The bible (if we skip the bits about stoning people for bad mouthing their mum or collecting sticks on the wrong day etc) is confirmation of what we should be able to come to understand ourselves.

I have no problem in anyone using Christianity as a great example of how we should live our lives. It was how I was brought up. But there are other examples we can follow. There are other books we should read. There are other people we should listen to. Bentham, Locke, Plato, Hobbes, Paine…the list is endless. How about Hitchens or Chomsky for a more contemporary opposing view and even Marx and a browse through Mein Kampf to see where it can all go wrong.

Have they each got the complete answer? Well, certainly not. Just as we need to skip most of Leviticus and treat Genesis as allegorical, we need to pass over Plato’s views on personal freedoms and Bentham’s more extreme versions of pragmatism.

Of course, I myself have not talked about it being “unnatural” nor have I quoted Scripture. My argument has been entirely secular: that we have seen, for centuries, the benefits of having a mom and a dad. I think it is wrong to deny children a mom or a dad intentionally.

That is not an argument. It is an opinion.

Some people certainly do.

Those ‘some people’ must be resisted. By both of us.

 

[PRmerger]

Natural urges which you consider to be disordered. There’s a world of difference.

Whether it’s natural or disordered, we both agree that urges ought not be indulged in simply because they’re urges, yes?

 

[PRmerger]

Well it’s not in the same way at all. What you are saying is the equivalent of saying (to continue your maths example) that the only rules you must follow in geometry are those based on Euclidian geometry. Nothing else exists, as far as you are concerned, so you have to ‘play by those rules’. Which isn’t the case.

I don’t believe I’ve ever said the equivalent of “nothing else exists” as far as the moral law is concerned.

In fact, I’ve been quite adamantine that atheists can have the moral law and that I would much rather have an atheist (you, for example) have my back than any number of professed Christians (a multitude here on the CAFs).

It’s just that I am also quite adamantine that atheists conform their moral laws to Truth.

Christianity is not the only game in town when it comes to developing a moral outlook.

Indeed. You are very Catholic when you say this.

 

[Bradski]

Whether it’s natural or disordered, we both agree that urges ought not be indulged in simply because they’re urges, yes?

No, we don’t both agree.

If I have an urge to have a beer while I’m watching the football, then I shall. If a couple find each other sexually attracted to each other and they feel an urge to make love, then all normal considerations apart (they don’t do it in the middle of the road, they have no personal commitments to anyone else, they are old enough etc), then there is nothing wrong with it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No, we don’t both agree.

If I have an urge to have a beer while I’m watching the football, then I shall. If a couple find each other sexually attracted to each other and they feel an urge to make love, then all normal considerations apart (they don’t do it in the middle of the road, they have no personal commitments to anyone else, they are old enough etc), then there is nothing wrong with it.

So you are claiming the moral authority to say, “There’s nothing wrong with it?” Does that mean the moral authority to make other pronouncements about right and wrong are, likewise, up to you?

If so, is there any sense in which others are “obligated” by your pronouncements?

Is there, at least, a defensible moral principle by which you make such pronouncements, and obligate others, or is this just off the top of your head?

If no one else is obligated, it is difficult to see how these pronouncements even qualify as moral ones.

 

[Bradski]

So you are claiming the moral authority to say, “There’s nothing wrong with it?” Does that mean the moral authority to make other pronouncements about right and wrong are, likewise, up to you?

If so, is there any sense in which others are “obligated” by your pronouncements?

Is there, at least, a defensible moral principle by which you make such pronouncements, and obligate others, or is this just off the top of your head?

If no one else is obligated, it is difficult to see how these pronouncements even qualify as moral ones.

The moral consideration is whether any harm is being done.

Now I appreciate that that is a subjective matter. But if I an urge to have a beer and do so, I personally can see nothing at all wrong with that (in fact, I’m having one now). I’m not sure if there’s anything in scripture that would define it as moral or immoral so presumably if you had to make a decision on the matter you would have to, wait for it, make up your own mind about it.

Likewise if a couple wanted to make love, then the only criteria I would use in whether I consider it to be moral or immoral (not that it would have anything at all to do with me) is if some harm is being done.

There are some very definite commandments in the bible and in Catholic teachings. If you feel the need to follow these, then at least you have something codified to which you can refer. But there are an infinite number of moral problems that we encounter in our daily lives that aren’t specifically covered.

There would be nothing wrong, I’m sure we’d both agree, in having a beer. But if you carry on drinking, at what point does it become a problem and then therefore possibly immoral? At what age is it considered to be immoral (as opposed to illegal) to offer a young person an alcoholic drink? How do you determine this? Not by reference to scripture, I’d bet.

Is it immoral to kill animals to eat? Is it immoral to keep them in cages before killing them? In what size cage would you consider it to be immoral to keep pigs? At what age should children be sent to work? What sort of work could a child be expected to do? Are arranged marriages immoral if both parties agree to one? Is wasting food immoral? How much would you consider it to be a waste?

Is there scripture to cover any of this? Of course not. So when you make a decision on any of these matters you use your God given common sense and internally debate the matter using all available evidence.

Is the decision you come to binding on you? On anyone else? Is it even the correct decision? It will be for you but other Christians will disagree and maybe they’ll tell you that they are guided by God in coming to a different decision.

What do you say to them? The same as you just said to me…?

 

[Peter_Plato]

The moral consideration is whether any harm is being done.

Given your presence on CAF, this was, obviously, not an unexpected answer. The problem with it, however, is that the definition of ‘harm’ is dependent upon what is taken to be the subject of that harm.

If your view of a human being is nothing more than a sentient or physical being, then harm would seem restricted to a physical impairment, incapacitation or causes of pain and suffering.

Even this, however, is not without problems. It would not, for example, prioritize cases of sentient animal cruelty in ways most people would find reasonable. Killing a cow (a fellow sentient creature) for food, if done without undue suffering or pain to animal, is, as far as most humans are concerned, unproblematic, but in terms of measurable ‘harm,’ killing would seem the ultimate harm that could be done to a sentient animal. Yet, the common, and arguably the reasonable view, is that pain and suffering, while less harmful, would be morally more objectionable, where merely sentient creatures are concerned.

That aside, however, the question, regarding human beings is whether, as intelligent moral agents, a merely sentient notion of harm, is a befitting foundation for determining ‘harm’ to human beings.

Would you count, for example, the impairment or incapacitation of 1) the ability to reason critically, 2) the ability to make sound moral decisions and 3) the motivation to act morally as discernible ‘harm’ to an individual, given that these may not involve any pain or suffering whatsoever?

A couple of examples, off the top of my head, would be:

1. Someone who introduces another person to drinking alcohol or smoking marijuana at a young and impressionable age after which the person becomes alcoholic or addicted to an ever increasing battery of hard drugs. The ‘introduction’ did not, itself, inflict pain or harm, but indirect and unforeseen consequences were determinably harmful.
2. In the case of your consensual sex encounter, suppose that encounter involves a happily married woman who consents to a fling where her husband (and no one else, either) never finds out, would that lack of knowledge make the encounter legitimate, given that no one is actually harmed? This does go to the question of impairing or incapacitating moral judgement or motivation, though, since either party may become less hesitant about subsequent encounters. A further question arises, however. What if the husband does find out and goes on a murderous rampage as a result? The action of the woman and her partner has been the cause of harm, though indirectly.

Would it be the case, then, that only direct harm counts for you, and any resulting repercussions can safely be dismissed as “Not their fault?” Where is the line at which these repercussions can be safely dismissed?

What if our actions, while not causing direct harm to anyone, lead to the moral erosion of our social group and beyond that our culture, making individuals around us less morally discerning and less motivated to act morally? Would that count as “harm” to you? Why wouldn’t it?

Finally, it would seem that your “harm” principle is based upon an amoral foundation - physical injury or sensible pain and suffering. Beyond that, determining harm as 1) the ability to reason critically, 2) the ability to make sound moral decisions and 3) the motivation to act morally as discernible ‘harm’ to an individual, requires a more extensive view of human nature than the sentient one that you are willing to allow can support. Once the above three harms are admitted as possible harms, a requirement to view human beings as determinably moral agents comes into play.

Without begging the question of “Are moral principles those principles upheld by moral agents or are moral agents beings those beings that uphold moral principles?” a requirement seems to exist that either moral agency or moral principles be clearly defined beyond merely physical injury or sensible harm can determine. Otherwise, it is mere sentience and not intelligence or moral agency that becomes the basis for morality - which leads to a morass of problems, even for you.

 

[PRmerger]

No, we don’t both agree.

If I have an urge to have a beer while I’m watching the football, then I shall. If a couple find each other sexually attracted to each other and they feel an urge to make love, then all normal considerations apart (they don’t do it in the middle of the road, they have no personal commitments to anyone else, they are old enough etc), then there is nothing wrong with it.

So what you mean is, you can satisfy your urge, unless there are reasons for you to not satisfy your urge.

That’s the Catholic way, too.

Otherwise, what you are proposing is that we all satisfy our urges whenever we desire to satisfy our urges.

And clearly as a married man you don’t believe that.

 

[PRmerger]

The moral consideration is whether any harm is being done.

So if your wife never finds out, and your co-worker’s husband never finds out, and you and she have a sexual liaison, whom is it harming?

Yet, I presume you would think that is still immoral, yeah?

 

[Bradski]

If your view of a human being is nothing more than a sentient or physical being, then harm would seem restricted to a physical impairment, incapacitation or causes of pain and suffering.

It might have saved you some typing if you’d have asked this first. Of course I consider harm other than physical. There is psychological harm to be considered as well.

For example, I don’t think it’s immoral to kill animals for food and I would have no problem explaining this to a young child - this meat was actually a cow that was wandering around a field eating grass. But I’d draw the line in taking her to an abbatoir to watch the process.

And the consequences of our actions in allowing someone to do something that you might consider immoral? Well, we all make those decisions multiple times a day. Dad, can I go swimming…dad, can I stay over a friends house…dad, can I have a sip of your wine.

Bringing up children is the ultimate excercise in these sort of moral questions. What are the consequences of the decisions I make when I allow or forbid something? Well, we (my wife and I) have tended towards the more liberal attitude coupled with as much information as we could possibly give our children so that they themselves were aware of potential problems.

So, yes you can have alcohol (at an earlier age than some people might have sanctioned) and yes, you are free to make your own minds up about sex and no, we won’t throw you out of the house if we find a joint in your sock draw.

How has that turned out I hear you ask. Well, they’re both well balanced, mature and responsible adults. Much more so than I was at their age, so I’m putting that down as a success. So is that the way everyone should treat their kids?

Well, obviously no. Which is the whole point. It is impossible to lay down a set of ground rules that will be applicable to everyone. You have to look at the situation at hand and…I know I keep repeating this mantra…you have to make your own mind up about it.

So it may well be the case that a particular father is correct in telling his own daufgter that she is not allowed to stay out past 10:00 o’clock and that no boys will be allowed in the house and there will be holy hell to play if she is found taking a drink. Maybe in their situation it’s the right thing to do. Or maybe she’ll rebel at the restrictions and end up in a worse position.

So you and I both go the same process when we try to decide if something is right or wrong. If we allow it, what are the consequences? Will some harm come from it. And more often than not, there is no right or wrong answer that will satisfy anyone. So we will have one person that says killing any animal is wrong and another saying that as long as the animal has a happy life before we slaughter it, that’s OK. Then another will say it"s ok to keep them indoors and another to say they can be put into enclosures. Then you can debate the size of the enclosure down to a few inches either way and say this one is OK but that one is not.

So as to the morality of raising animals for food, is there one correct answer? Can it be found in scripture? Will your local priest have some insight? Does the church have some figures on animal husbandry and enclosure sizes? Or…are you going to make your own mind up about it?

 

[Bradski]

So what you mean is, you can satisfy your urge, unless there are reasons for you to not satisfy your urge.

That’s the Catholic way, too.

Except that Catholics consider some urges to be disordered. And I don’t.

So if your wife never finds out, and your co-worker’s husband never finds out, and you and she have a sexual liaison, whom is it harming?

Yet, I presume you would think that is still immoral, yeah?

Personally (because these are decisions we have to make personally), I would consider it wrong as regards my wife and myself. Other people might not and you’d have to check with them if they thought it was OK.

It’s not just a simple matter of ‘she can trust me and I can trust her’. Part of the relationship with my wife is my knowing that she can put that much trust in me. It’s nice to have that. If I cheated, then she would believe something about me that was a lie. And I think that would be wrong.

So you have a momentary liaison versus a lifetime of trust. You pick the one that’s most valuable to you.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Except that Catholics consider some urges to be disordered. And I don’t.

What do you say about the urge to have sex with a child?

 

[Bradski]

What do you say about the urge to have sex with a child?

I wouldn’t want to put an age on it (although the Catholic Church will allow it at age 14 in some circumstances), but I consider it wrong. Would that come as a surprise to you? I’m not sure why you’d ask it.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I wouldn’t want to put an age on it (although the Catholic Church will allow it at age 14 in some circumstances), but I consider it wrong. Would that come as a surprise to you? I’m not sure why you’d ask it.

You said that you don’t consider some urges to be disordered. But apparently you misspoke, since you consider the urge to have sex with a child objectively disordered.

 

[Bradski]

I just reread your question and it seems you are not asking about having sex with a child but what do I think of the urge to have sex with a child.

That is not an easy question to answer…

Is a kleptomania sinful if he doesn’t steal anything. Is an alcoholic sinful if he doesn’t drink. Is someone who is gay sinful if they remain celibate? Then the tricky one…is a paedophile sinful if he doesn’t act on his urges?

I had a long discussion with someone on another forum about a similar problem. Is it possible for evil to exist if no-one does anything evil? Is it evil to think it even if you don’t act on it? Is there such a thing as a thought crime?

 

[Bradski]

You said that you don’t consider some urges to be disordered. But apparently you misspoke, since you consider the urge to have sex with a child objectively disordered.

If I don’t think some urges to be disordered then it naturally follows that I must think that some are.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If I don’t think some urges to be disordered then it naturally follows that I must think that some are.

Now I misspoke. I meant to say that “you said that there are no disordered urges”.