For the life of mine... I cannot understand you!

[Spock]

Thanks for the information. I wish I could tell my friend Kant, but he seems to have left the building.

I wish I could talk to him…

But people think all kinds of things will give them happiness, and they almost invariably discover that they were wrong. I am amenable to the concept of liberalism because – and I imagine you agree with me – the *best *way for people to learn the absurdity of their ways is experience. But the waters of liberalism must be “spiked”, as it were, with the corrective influence of the wisdom of ages. The culture must place value in the enactment of virtue, and I am afraid our culture increasingly considers virtue a thing of the past.

Perhaps this movement away from virtue only happens to coincide with the cultural acceptance homosexuality. Correlation is not causality. And yet, I wonder.

The wisdom of ages is with us. It is available for everyone who cares to learn it. It is wise to learn from it. All true. The problem is always the dissenters. Those who question the wisdom of old times. And these dissenters are the ones who bring the world forward. They frequently make mistakes, no doubt.

But if everyone would be a “conservative” (as opposed to “liberal” as we use this word) the would still live in those much venerated “good old times”. And I think: “the good old times are today”. In every generation the old ones complain about the disappearance of “virtue” - remember Cicero’s “O tempora, o mores”. There is no evidence that the new times are always - “invariably” as you put it - are less “virtuous” then the old times.

This is the dogma of liberalism.

Yes, it is. But observe, it is the most permisive dogma there is.

True, but there is always the danger of “throwing out the baby with the bathwater…”

Very true. The new experiments do not always “pan out”, and the erroneous ones get eliminated. Our consolaton is that under the liberal dogma the only people who will be hurt are the ones who participated in the experiment. And that is the only, basic, positive right that everyone has: “the right to be wrong”.

If you make any serious investigation of the happiness levels of modern women, I’m afraid it would be difficult to argue that things have gotten better for them. The sexual revolution has given women more responsibility, and has emancipated men from the duty of caring for their children. From a purely utilitarian standpoint, maybe we ought to encourage all young men to be homosexuals, just so they won’t destroy the lives of the women they “love”.

Well, you will agree - I hope - that homosexuals do not rape women.

Does a good parent focus on catering to a child’s wants? Just so, society should not be built around wants, but needs.

Are we back to this analogy? “Society” is not wiser, than the individual. Hopefully the parent is wiser that the child.

In the process, oppressing a great portion of the poorer people of the world, on whose backs we have made our millions. We may have recklessly pursued happiness, but at whose expense? (Alright, I admit it – I’m a closet Marxist!)

Ouch! As you can guess, I am not. I grew up in the old satellite states, and learned from first hand experience that Marxist way simply does not work. Marx was a smart fellow, but his made too many errors in his analysis. Let’s not get into that.

 

[Spock]

Spock - sex being an expression of love cannot be evil? Those are your exact words.

Yes, they were.

Are you saying that a brother and sister who have sex with each other as an expression of their love are doing no evil? Even though incest does have all sorts of terrible consequences? Or a father who has sex with his daughter?

These practices were commonplace in the “good old times”, before the biological results were realized. No such sex is not inherently “evil”, though it is considered to be “evil” by todays standards. By the way, isn’t it true that the RCC permits the marriage between first cousins? The biological impact is still there, is it not?

Or a woman who has sex with a man who is not her husband? Even though many lives are ripped apart by adultery?

Only if done without the consent of the partner, when it is cheating.

Of course all of the above are indeed doing all sorts of evil. And even though they may not see the evil, it nonetheless exists, much as the murderer who feels justified in killing someone who cuts them off in traffic might not see the evil they have done, but nonetheless it is present.

Society recognises those evils, even if a minority of individuals do not. Thus we are justified in locking away the murderer (in a psych ward if not in prison) and criminalising incest, whatever the feelings of the participants might be.

Sorry, equating murder with sex (even among close relatives) is a bit strong.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Ouch. That something was supposedly ‘commonplace’ (and we really don’t know this) doesn’t make it right, does it?

If you had ever had to live through the trauma of dealing with incest I do not think that you could possibly find it not evil. You have a lot of compassion for all sorts of other actions done to humanity–I find it troubling that an action which shatters the most basic trust between parent and child and has negative consequences and repercussions in every area of that child’s life from then on, crippling his/her social interactions permanently, is dismissed by you as a ‘commonplace’ and not inherently evil.

If you ever had to be awakened from sleep with flashbacks, to remember the utter misery, confusion, and horror of those rapes, to constantly look at yourself in the mirror and to hate the person looking back at you. . . you might not think this so ‘commonplace.’

 

[Spock]

Ouch. That something was supposedly ‘commonplace’ (and we really don’t know this) doesn’t make it right, does it?

“Right and wrong” are social terms. Biologically it is beneficial, harmful or maybe neutral. Indeed it must have been a commonplace occurrence before parental linage was recognized. (Mater semper certa, pater semper incertus est). And there is no evidence that the act itself is biologicially harmful, though the offspring (if any) can be seriously affected.

Mind you, I do not defend the practice. Biologically it can have serious and harmful consequences. It is a good idea to instill serious guards against it.

If you had ever had to live through the trauma of dealing with incest I do not think that you could possibly find it not evil. You have a lot of compassion for all sorts of other actions done to humanity–I find it troubling that an action which shatters the most basic trust between parent and child and has negative consequences and repercussions in every area of that child’s life from then on, crippling his/her social interactions permanently, is dismissed by you as a ‘commonplace’ and not inherently evil.

If you ever had to be awakened from sleep with flashbacks, to remember the utter misery, confusion, and horror of those rapes, to constantly look at yourself in the mirror and to hate the person looking back at you. . . you might not think this so ‘commonplace.’

Those traumatic experiences do not come from the biological act. They come from the social conditioning, which I consider proper.

Cannibalism is also guarded against - by instilling safeguards against it. But the act itself is not “evil”. Under certain circumstances it might be acceptable. Remember the tragedy in the Andes a few decades ago. No one condemned the survivors for engaging in cannibalism, and rightfully so.

Life is not black and white. It is not always “morally admirable” or “downright evil”. There are millions of shades of grey, and it is the denial of these grey areas which I find hard to understand.

 

[Areopagite]

First: beneficial and harmful, which are each other’s opposites. Their synonyms are good and bad. These categories cannot be defined for inanimate objects. For a piece of marble it is not “benefical” or “good” to be sculpted into a piece of art, and it is not “harmful” or “bad” for it to be broken up into small pieces.

Well, technically, I think the terms “good” and “bad” are used all the time for inanimate objects. Putting magnets by a computer is “bad” for the computer. Jumping on a bed is “bad” for the bed. Not ever putting oil in your car is “bad” for your car. You could even say (and people do say) that these are “harmful” for the computer, bed, car, etc. This is because (as I’ve said numerous times before) that doing such things begins to deprive the objects of what they are (essentially, takes away their power to fulfill their purpose). However, this is ontological goodness/badness. It does not follow necessarily that causing ontological badness is automatically an moral evil.

Now, your example of the marble: by sculpting the chunk of marble, it does not cease being essentially what it is … a chunk of marble (though it may multiply into smaller ones). No ontological evil is taking place (but I am open to correction on this). If you were sculpting something out of a living dog, though … you would probably make the dog stop being a dog (i.e. you would kill the dog) … and that would be an ontological evil (though not necessarily a moral evil … but people can disagree with that … for now). When you get the marble sculpted into a statue … it now becomes an artifact, with artificial purpose imposed by a human agent … thus, anything that causes it to lose its statue-relevant purpose, can be said to be bad for it.

Does this make sense? Or do you still refuse to recognize the legitimacy of ontological goodness? If you do, you honestly can’t say something like, “Never putting oil in your car is bad for your car.”

These categories can only be defined for living organisms, which try to maintain their homeostasis. For living creatures it is “good” or “beneficial” to maintain their continued existence, and it is “bad” or “harmful” to lose their continued existence.

Good. Amen. I agree with you. Here you are talking about ontological goodness.

Now, to talk about “living organisms” in general is too crude for subtle distinction making. The living organisms differ in their complexity. The organisms without a nervous system (vegetation and bacteria) are very different from the members of the animal kingdom. For a tree it is “bad” to lose a branch, but the loss is “unknown” for the tree - it does not “care”. It does not feel pain. Lacking a nervous system there is no pain, no sense of “well being”, there is no fear.

I very much agree with you here that there is a major difference that must be acknowledged between organisms that can “feel” and those that cannot.

But the term “evil” (finally we get to this term, too) is not applicable for [animals]. When a cat “plays” with a mouse, it causes pain, it causes anguish, but the cat does not know that.

I agree that animals are not capable of moral evil, ultimately due to inherent inability to be aware of certain things.

Unlike the biological “good” and “bad” these new terms can be ambiguous. What one person considers “morally good”, can be viewed as “evil” by someone else. There is simply no concensus on the matter. (Example: a suicide bomber is viewed as a hero and a martyr by his brethren, while others consider him a despicable terrorist).

Generally speaking a “moral behavior” is defined as being in harmony with some “rule set” - adhering to some “expected behavior”. Where this rule set comes from is the source of contention between theists and atheists. Also we have to be aware that there are many rule sets. We all belong to many “groups” and the expected behavior may be in contradiction with other, applicable rule sets. To make the matter even more complicated, the rule sets change as time goes on. Whatever was considered “moral” yesterday, may be considered immoral today. (Example could be casual drug usage in the US. It used to be perfectly acceptable and legal about a 100 years ago.)

Um … not entirely sure what you’re implying here. Are you going the “everything is relative” route? If so … a few words: just because there’s no consensus on a matter doesn’t make the truth of that matter relative. There’s really no consensus on anything that I’m aware of. Some people still believe the world is flat … hence, there is no consensus on the issue of the world’s shape … hence, it’s relative? You could reply, “Well, there is a consensus among real scientists” or something, but I could simply reply a similar cop-out answer and say, “There is a consensus among real philosophers among the basic principles of morality” (and I would stand by this claim). But, maybe you’re not arguing for moral relativism, and if you’re not, I apologize. I would be curious why you brought this up though. I don’t understand entirely what you’re trying to do here.

Well, I do appreciate you saying a little more about what you believe, and I agree with certain things that I thought we would disagree on, but … I’m still not sure how you relate what a person wants to what is actually good for a person.

This is an important point, because your ethical theory seems to entirely be based on what a person wants and not what is actually good for him/her. Inversely, your ethical theory has absolutely nothing (or next to nothing) to do with what is actually good for him/her (i.e. ontological goodness … which includes homeostasis and all that). I say this because, in your previous posts, you say that the consent of a person to whom an action is done is really the determining factor of that action’s morality. And yet, you say elsewhere that a morally good action is whether it helps a person’s life (helps maintain homeostasis and all that). And you also said that it is possible for someone to want what is bad for them. Do you see the gapping hole of contradictions in your arguments? It comes down to this:

Does morality have to do with helping a person get what he wants?
OR …
Does morality have to do with helping a person improve his life? (pertains to homeostasis … or ontological goodness to encapsulate it all)

You cannot have it both ways. You yourself admitted that a person can want what is not good for them. So which is it? What does morality consist of?

 

[shoewindow3000]

Look at yourself from the outside. First, you assert - unanimously - that the highest value for God is love. You also say (and I agree) that love must be manifested in actions, a “proclaimed” love without actions is useless. Then, also unanimously you condemn the sexual expression of love between two consenting adults as evil and sinful, if those two people happen to belong to the same gender. Even if they are legitimally married heterosexuals, but their act is not aimed at procreation (rather simple pleasure seeking) you say that their act of love is evil. Next, you try to find “excuses” for the acts of supreme “non-love”, for example rape, torture, murder - by saying that we “cannot know” if these acts are truly evil. There is no hesitation in the condemnation of homosexual love, there is no “maybe it is OK, we just don’t know”. But there are all sorts of excuses in regard of really evil acts. And you assert that God thinks like you…

Don’t you realize how strange you are from the outside? How utterly incomprehensible?

To answer the first question, God is the Author of life, and that includes sex.

To answer the seconds, rape, murder, torture contradict the will of God; therefore, they are sin.
Who said that they believe in such things?

 

[Spock]

Well, technically, I think the terms “good” and “bad” are used all the time for inanimate objects. Putting magnets by a computer is “bad” for the computer. Jumping on a bed is “bad” for the bed. Not ever putting oil in your car is “bad” for your car. You could even say (and people do say) that these are “harmful” for the computer, bed, car, etc. This is because (as I’ve said numerous times before) that doing such things begins to deprive the objects of what they are (essentially, takes away their power to fulfill their purpose). However, this is ontological goodness/badness. It does not follow necessarily that causing ontological badness is automatically an moral evil.

The car, the computer or the piece of the marble don’t care. The damage done to these objects hurts the human who owns these objects. It is imprecise to say that the objects are hurt. If that computer is not owned by anyone, then the damage does not count.

Does this make sense? Or do you still refuse to recognize the legitimacy of ontological goodness? If you do, you honestly can’t say something like, “Never putting oil in your car is bad for your car.”

In colloquial language we can say that, by implictly accepting that the owner of the car experiences the “badness” done to the car.

Good. Amen. I agree with you. Here you are talking about ontological goodness.

I very much agree with you here that there is a major difference that must be acknowledged between organisms that can “feel” and those that cannot.

I agree that animals are not capable of moral evil, ultimately due to inherent inability to be aware of certain things.

I am very glad that we have agreement.

Um … not entirely sure what you’re implying here. Are you going the “everything is relative” route? If so … a few words: just because there’s no consensus on a matter doesn’t make the truth of that matter relative. There’s really no consensus on anything that I’m aware of. Some people still believe the world is flat … hence, there is no consensus on the issue of the world’s shape … hence, it’s relative? You could reply, “Well, there is a consensus among real scientists” or something, but I could simply reply a similar cop-out answer and say, “There is a consensus among real philosophers among the basic principles of morality” (and I would stand by this claim). But, maybe you’re not arguing for moral relativism, and if you’re not, I apologize. I would be curious why you brought this up though. I don’t understand entirely what you’re trying to do here.

The shape of the Earth can be found out with objective methods. To assert otherwise (flat Earthers) is simply nuts. How should one behave is highly subjective. There can be no objective method to find out “how should one behave”. There are some guidelines, which may be accepted or rejected.

Here is an interesting example. In quite a few cities (in the US) there are local ordinances which forbid one to feed someone else’s parking meter. How should one behave when seeing an expired parking meter? The good Samarian would help and break the local law. The person whose sentiment is “that is the law of land” (I hate that pompous phrase) would not help? Which one is right?

Does morality have to do with helping a person get what he wants?
OR …
Does morality have to do with helping a person improve his life? (pertains to homeostasis … or ontological goodness to encapsulate it all)

You cannot have it both ways. You yourself admitted that a person can want what is not good for them. So which is it? What does morality consist of?

Unfortunately I don’t even agree that there is an unchanging, absolute morality. And that is not relativism. The accepted norms of behavior - which I call “moral behavior” is a variable. It changes from time to time and from society to society. Yet, in every society there is a set of norms, which are generally accepted as “proper” or “moral”.

In some societies public nudity is accepted, in others it is not. I can only offer the inverse golden rule as the best way to approach morality, and I am fully aware that not everyone will accept it. This rule says: “do **not **do unto others that you do **not **want them to do unto you”. In other words: live and let live. Respect the integrity of others. Be helpful when asked to do so.

If these criteria cannot be met, for example the unconscious victim of a car crash cannot utter his wishes, then use the direct golden rule: “do unto others that you would like others to do unto you”.

That is the best way to describe my moral or ethical system. Many people disagree, but I cannot help that.

I hate to sound wishy-washy, but to your direct question above I can only answer: “it depends…”.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Yes, so far you are correct. But I never said that sex and love are the same. Sex is an expression of love between some people - and as such it cannot be “evil” - even if it cannot lead to procreation. Which you will confirm as soon as I speak about sex between infertile (but legally married) persons. And then you will make a turnabout if I speak about an unmarried couple, where the partners want to procreate…

We should make sure we understand what Love means in regards to Christianity.

You are far from the truth in your understanding except from a secular point of view in the current times in the USA. That does not make for truth and you are mixing current secular definitions to Love and Sex when in Jesus time Christians used these terms differently than how you are using them.

That said… you are wrong. Love can and does exist with out sex. Jesus and Mary are great examples. Sex it but an act that can contribute to God’s will or not. If this is outside marriage and not between a man and a woman then it is not God’s will. Scripture is clear on this.

 

[Spock]

We should make sure we understand what Love means in regards to Christianity.

You are far from the truth in your understanding except from a secular point of view in the current times in the USA. That does not make for truth and you are mixing current secular definitions to Love and Sex when in Jesus time Christians used these terms differently than how you are using them.

Well, that makes their usage rather unintelligible. I am speaking of here and now.

That said… you are wrong. Love can and does exist with out sex.

Of course it can. I love my son and there is no sex involved. I did not say anywhere that love cannot exist without sex. What I said that sex is a valuable method to express love between some adults. And that is quite different, isn’t it? I was not talking about a casual roll in the hay either. Not about a one-night stand. I was talking about sex as a method to express one’s love toward another person. I also said that this expression of love cannot be considered “evil” by any rationally thinking person.

Jesus and Mary are great examples. Sex it but an act that can contribute to God’s will or not. If this is outside marriage and not between a man and a woman then it is not God’s will. Scripture is clear on this.

To quote the Scripture is not an argument. It can be a great way to clarify your position, but, as an argument… it is without merit.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Alright, Spock, I think we’ve agreed to disagree about nearly every issue here. Just one note in a minor key that I wanted to bring up:

The wisdom of ages is with us. It is available for everyone who cares to learn it. It is wise to learn from it. All true. The problem is always the dissenters. Those who question the wisdom of old times. And these dissenters are the ones who bring the world forward. They frequently make mistakes, no doubt.

I was not defending the status quo, which seems to be your impression here. The status quo should always be questioned and challenged, but this must be done with wisdom and constraint. The “wisdom of ages” comes from far different cultures; it is, in short, those precious jewels that the sieve of history has not lost.

The wisdom of ages tells us that romantic love and society are often at war – and, in this war, both sides do abhorrent things. Consider Romeo and Juliet, for a moment. The play’s beauty is not just in the fact that it is a tale of tragic love. It is also a tale of a stupid old clergyman (Friar Laurence) who made a reckless decision to subvert the customs of his time. In the case of R&J, those customs were hardly defensible. But the key question in the moral life is: *how *do we resist oppression? Our internal character is infinitely more important than our external constraints.

But if everyone would be a “conservative” (as opposed to “liberal” as we use this word) the would still live in those much venerated “good old times”. And I think: “the good old times are today”. In every generation the old ones complain about the disappearance of “virtue” - remember Cicero’s “O tempora, o mores”. There is no evidence that the new times are always - “invariably” as you put it - are less “virtuous” then the old times.

I never said that the old times were better. In some ways they were better, in others far worse. Virtues are picked up and discarded and picked up again. Virtues are so overemphasized as to become vices. Vices are so courageously defended as to smack of virtue. We can trust that many who declare themselves good are actually very much scoundrels, and others who declare themselves bad are full of courage and goodness and life.

The world spins and comes round to where it first began. But by the time it gets there, we’ll be six feet under – you can’t go home again.

(Unless you carry home with you.)

 

[Areopagite]

The car, the computer or the piece of the marble don’t care. The damage done to these objects hurts the human who owns these objects. It is imprecise to say that the objects are hurt. If that computer is not owned by anyone, then the damage does not count.

I agree that if the computer is not owned by anyone, the damage “does not count” in terms of morality. But the damage still counts in terms of ontology, that is, it is still bad for the computer, because it ceases being a good, decent running computer.

In colloquial language we can say that, by implictly accepting that the owner of the car experiences the “badness” done to the car.

The colloquial language is correct. This is because “goodness” here is not being referred to with regard to morality but in terms of what “what makes the car run well.” This usage of the word “good” is so universal that it would be very suspect to dispense with it. Instead of redefining or narrowing the possible meaning, the accepted meaning should be taken as given and then reasoned from there. Otherwise, it’s bad philosophy.

The shape of the Earth can be found out with objective methods. To assert otherwise (flat Earthers) is simply nuts.

Sure it can be found out by objective methods. But that doesn’t pertain to the point I was making. You said that since there is no consensus in morality, morality thus is relative/subjective (right?). I can take your premise “If something is not agreed upon, then it is subjective” and apply it to the round/flat earth debate. Obviously, you will agree that such a premise is false (at least insofar as you stated it previously).

Now, perhaps you are now refining it to be: “If something is not agreed upon and also unable to be objectively verified” then it is subjective/relative. Of course, that’s not true either. If no one agrees upon how Alexander the Great died (combined with the fact that there’s no way to find out) then are you saying that the truth with regard to Alexander’s death is subjective/relative? No, Alexander the Great died a certain way, no matter what people believe, even if it can’t be objectively discovered.

How should one behave is highly subjective. There can be no objective method to find out “how should one behave”. There are some guidelines, which may be accepted or rejected.

I couldn’t disagree more. Do you have a proof for this? Obviously, you can’t say, “There’s no objective method because no one agrees on it” because people don’t agree on the shape of the earth either and yet there are objective means to discovering it. I would say, that the principles of morality can be objectively discovered.

I would say, in short, that the road to objective discovery of moral principles rests in the correct philosophical understanding of human nature and what ultimately fulfills and detracts from it. Though ethics can get very complex, and errors can come along the way in one’s thinking, this is no reason to judge morality as a dubious and subjective science. Errors arise in all sciences. Physics is reasoned from repetitive physical phenomena, whereas moral philosophy is reasoned from the truths of human nature.

Here is an interesting example. In quite a few cities (in the US) there are local ordinances which forbid one to feed someone else’s parking meter. How should one behave when seeing an expired parking meter? The good Samarian would help and break the local law. The person whose sentiment is “that is the law of land” (I hate that pompous phrase) would not help? Which one is right?

So, you are asking a question how morality and civil legislation relate/interact with each other? In other words, in traditional language, natural law vs. civil law, i.e. what is objectively moral vs. what the state requires. It’s a good question, one brought up in political science a lot. A few points:

**- If civil law requires you to do something objectively immoral (murder your parents), then you are morally obligated to disobey the state in that case.

• If civil law requires you to do something that is not objectively immoral, then you are required to do it.**

I am open to being corrected by a political scientist on this. Since you are not morally obligated to put coins in the parking meter, and since the state forbids it, you should not put coins in. Even if the state did allow it, you are still not morally obligated. It would be a generous, charitable thing to do but not a morally necessary one.

The accepted norms of behavior - which I call “moral behavior” is a variable. It changes from time to time and from society to society. Yet, in every society there is a set of norms, which are generally accepted as “proper” or “moral”.

These societal set of norms may happen to contain things that are objectively moral along with things that are not moral (not necessarily immoral but irrelevant to morality). Rules of etiquette are not objectively moral rules but societally accepted ones to make people feel more comfortable and on the same page in terms of trivial conduct. Sometimes society can have inaccurate views of morality, too, as is the case with Germany in the Nazi regime. I would then caution you from calling accepted norms of behavior “moral behavior” because just because some things are accepted by some people (even if it’s the society in general) doesn’t make them okay, obviously.

In some societies public nudity is accepted, in others it is not.

Public nudity is not an absolute moral evil. It may lead to moral evils (… like rape, I guess), so that is why some governments prohibit it. Such a law helps to assist objective morality, but that law itself isn’t an absolute moral one.

I can only offer the inverse golden rule as the best way to approach morality, and I am fully aware that not everyone will accept it. This rule says: “do **not **do unto others that you do **not **want them to do unto you”. In other words: live and let live. Respect the integrity of others. Be helpful when asked to do so.

I agree very much with this. However, are you saying that this is also subjective? You must have some objective reason for saying this, or is it just a feeling? What, perhaps, do you mean by subjective then? Do you honestly say that all morality is subjective? Don’t you want to say that the Nazis did immoral things, despite what the government or changing times have said or will say? Honestly, everybody believes in objective morality, but many have not thought through it clearly, and that is why disagreements arise.

 

[Spock]

Alright, Spock, I think we’ve agreed to disagree about nearly every issue here. Just one note in a minor key that I wanted to bring up:

Interesting. It was my impression that we had quite a few instances of agreement.

I was not defending the status quo, which seems to be your impression here. The status quo should always be questioned and challenged, but this must be done with wisdom and constraint. The “wisdom of ages” comes from far different cultures; it is, in short, those precious jewels that the sieve of history has not lost.

Another agreement.

The wisdom of ages tells us that romantic love and society are often at war – and, in this war, both sides do abhorrent things. Consider Romeo and Juliet, for a moment. The play’s beauty is not just in the fact that it is a tale of tragic love. It is also a tale of a stupid old clergyman (Friar Laurence) who made a reckless decision to subvert the customs of his time. In the case of R&J, those customs were hardly defensible. But the key question in the moral life is: *how *do we resist oppression? Our internal character is infinitely more important than our external constraints.

That reminds me of great tape which was analyzing Shakespeare’s genius. He knew what sells to the masses: teenage sex, violence, and murder. That is the reason that Romeo and Juliet are still so popular today. But this is hardly relevant, I just thought I’d mention.

I never said that the old times were better. In some ways they were better, in others far worse.

Another possible agreement. It might be interesting to explore this avenue, in another thread.

Anyhow, you are a wonderful partner for a discussion. I enjoy your remarks even if I happen to disagree with you.

 

[Spock]

I agree that if the computer is not owned by anyone, the damage “does not count” in terms of morality. But the damage still counts in terms of ontology, that is, it is still bad for the computer, because it ceases being a good, decent running computer.

You still use the terms which imply a human user. The computer is also made by conscious, living beings. I am talking abou the world completely devoid of life. There is an avalanche, due to an Earthquake. There is no “goodness” or “badness” involved in that.

Sure it can be found out by objective methods. But that doesn’t pertain to the point I was making. You said that since there is no consensus in morality, morality thus is relative/subjective (right?). I can take your premise “If something is not agreed upon, then it is subjective” and apply it to the round/flat earth debate. Obviously, you will agree that such a premise is false (at least insofar as you stated it previously).

You still use the terms “subjective” and “relative” as synonyms. They are not.

I couldn’t disagree more. Do you have a proof for this? Obviously, you can’t say, “There’s no objective method because no one agrees on it” because people don’t agree on the shape of the earth either and yet there are objective means to discovering it. I would say, that the principles of morality can be objectively discovered.

That is a very tall order. Go for it, if you want to.

So, you are asking a question how morality and civil legislation relate/interact with each other? In other words, in traditional language, natural law vs. civil law, i.e. what is objectively moral vs. what the state requires. It’s a good question, one brought up in political science a lot. A few points:

**- If civil law requires you to do something objectively immoral (murder your parents), then you are morally obligated to disobey the state in that case.

• If civil law requires you to do something that is not** objectively immoral, then you are required to do it.

I am open to being corrected by a political scientist on this. Since you are not morally obligated to put coins in the parking meter, and since the state forbids it, you should not put coins in. Even if the state did allow it, you are still not morally obligated. It would be a generous, charitable thing to do but not a morally necessary one.

First, there is no “natural law” that I am aware of. There are “laws of nature”, but that is quite different. Second, to have a law, which explicitly forbids a helpful behavior toward others is “immoral” - in my book.

Sometimes society can have inaccurate views of morality, too, as is the case with Germany in the Nazi regime. I would then caution you from calling accepted norms of behavior “moral behavior” because just because some things are accepted by some people (even if it’s the society in general) doesn’t make them okay, obviously.

It is far from obvious. First, the majority of the Germans disagreed with the policy, so it was not “moral” in the sense that it was generally accepted. But that is not the point.

Let’s take another example, slavery. In the US it was the general concensus that blacks are inferior, they can be justly and rightfully kept as chattel, bought and sold. (Guess where did they get the justification for this?) In that society keeping slaves was moral. We consider such practice immoral. Who is right? “We are” - most people would say. We can justly and rightly condemn that practice. Even though that time is now gone, we take the “moral highground” and condemn the practice. I wonder, what would be their line of reasoning which would convince the slaveholders?

Now let’s apply the same reasoning to the Biblical times, where “indentured servitude” was morally accepted. Regardless of the fact that these two only differ in name, but not in substance, let’s be “charitable” and say that they are really different. If it was “morally right” back then, it would be morally right today - if there would be an unchanging standard of morality.

But of course, there is none. The usual excuse is that “it was then, this is now”, and our moral framework is not applicable to those times. So what will it be? Can we justly condemn the slavery in the US, which was “back then”, and embrace “indentured servitude” - which was also “back then”?

This is just another example that many people attempt to blow both hot and cold from their mouths - at the same time. I call it “inconsistency” when I want to be “charitable”, and I call it something quite different in the privacy of my home.

I agree very much with this. However, are you saying that this is also subjective?

The principle is objective, its acceptance or rejection is subjective. In my eyes it is the optimal social behavior - in our times. By the way, it can be also proven using game theory (a branch of mathematics).

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Of course it can. I love my son and there is no sex involved. I did not say anywhere that love cannot exist without sex. What I said that sex is a valuable method to express love between some adults. And that is quite different, isn’t it? I was not talking about a casual roll in the hay either. Not about a one-night stand. I was talking about sex as a method to express one’s love toward another person. I also said that this expression of love cannot be considered “evil” by any rationally thinking person.

You say that sex can used to show love as another method. I do not totally disagree or agree.

I think we need to first examine what the intent of sex is before we speak of it’s side effects. The basis of sex is procreation. sexual organs are designed for procreation. You can only have procreation in a male and female union. Anything else is not what our bodies were designed for. Then we need to extend this fundamental understanding to Life and in that a Christian must embrace God and His will. It is only through God that we will find Love. If we have Love and we follow God’s will then sex can truly be a method of showing Love while at the same time using the act of sex for it’s first purpose of procreation.

There really is no logical explanation for using our sexual organs outside of procreation. It is in the same category as using our sexual organs with animals and other abhorent actions. These acts bring pleasure to a few but they are not as they were intended to be used. That is why it is a disorder. Homosexuality is such a disorder.

 

[Spock]

You say that sex can used to show love as another method. I do not totally disagree or agree.

Well, that is something.

I think we need to first examine what the intent of sex is before we speak of it’s side effects. The basis of sex is procreation. sexual organs are designed for procreation. You can only have procreation in a male and female union. Anything else is not what our bodies were designed for.

They were nor “designed”.

Then we need to extend this fundamental understanding to Life and in that a Christian must embrace God and His will. It is only through God that we will find Love.

Not the love I am concerned with. Love is an emotion which may occur between any two human beings, whether they are Christian or not.

There really is no logical explanation for using our sexual organs outside of procreation.

Isn’t there? How about an elderly couple, past the childbearing age? Is there no logical explanation for them to have sex? Really, how many times does this nonsense need to be exposed?

It is in the same category as using our sexual organs with animals and other abhorent actions. These acts bring pleasure to a few but they are not as they were intended to be used. That is why it is a disorder. Homosexuality is such a disorder.

Intended… again. If you wish to pursue that avenue, then you are under the obligation to give some evidence that your view is correct. To say that this is what you believe is not an argument. To say that this is the strongly held belief of all Christians is not an argument. To say that this is what the Bible says is not an argument. To say that this is what the Pope says is not an argument. It is a reflection of your beliefs, which I may respect, but that is all. Let me point this out: when arguing with an atheist, do not use religious arguments. It is just a waste of time, energy and bandwidth. They will not be accepted. Use secular arguments only. Those can be convincing.

Besides, one can take a different slant on this subject - which is much more logical. God obviously intended the the sexual act to be used in every possible instance. Otherwise, he could have made it pleasurable if and only if the act is intended to procreate. Even between married couples, if they intended it to be used for pleasure only, it could have been “designed” not to be pleasurable.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

They were nor “designed”.

Then what if not designed? Evolved? If so, same thing.

Not the love I am concerned with. Love is an emotion which may occur between any two human beings, whether they are Christian or not.

This is a perfect example of what I was referring to with language.
Love is best defined with 1 Corinthians 13 and that (I am sure) is different than your secular understanding of the word Love.
Quote: Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated,
it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury,
it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.
It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Isn’t there? How about an elderly couple, past the childbearing age? Is there no logical explanation for them to have sex? Really, how many times does this nonsense need to be exposed?

When the woman or man are for all known reasons unable to reach conception (whatever reason) of a new life then there is always the possibility of a miracle. History has shown us that a couple who was once thought unable to have child can still have a child for an unknown reason. The history could be this last year or maybe from scripture. So your point is made mute so long as there is a possibility of procreation and they are open to procreation.
Look at the physical properties of the human body and it is clear to see that the sexual organs of a man and woman are meant for each other and not for the same gender. There is no argument to made for homosexuality unless one rejects reason and facts.
So now you must see that the nonsense is from you.

Intended… again. If you wish to pursue that avenue, then you are under the obligation to give some evidence that your view is correct. To say that this is what you believe is not an argument. To say that this is the strongly held belief of all Christians is not an argument. To say that this is what the Bible says is not an argument. To say that this is what the Pope says is not an argument. It is a reflection of your beliefs, which I may respect, but that is all. Let me point this out: when arguing with an atheist, do not use religious arguments. It is just a waste of time, energy and bandwidth. They will not be accepted. Use secular arguments only. Those can be convincing.

You are at the wrong site to be making an argument that scripture is not an argument.
But regardless… if you require proof of what is painfully obvious in nature then it will not matter what proof is presented since you are blind to it. It is so simple that children before starting school understand the birds and the bees on a elementary level. But add science and reason and logic and it is all the more obvious that males and females are pair to procreate. Unless of course you are some lower species that is hardly evolved and can divide itself.

Besides, one can take a different slant on this subject - which is much more logical. God obviously intended the the sexual act to be used in every possible instance. Otherwise, he could have made it pleasurable if and only if the act is intended to procreate. Even between married couples, if they intended it to be used for pleasure only, it could have been “designed” not to be pleasurable.

Logical? So far you have not presented any kind of logical argument but demand further proofs.

I think you need to present a proof. Any proof. And to avoid “proofs” that reject known facts.

 

[Spock]

Then what if not designed? Evolved? If so, same thing.

Not the same thing at all. Evolution does not **care **how we use our organs.

This is a perfect example of what I was referring to with language.
Love is best defined with 1 Corinthians 13 and that (I am sure) is different than your secular understanding of the word Love.
Quote: Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated,
it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury,
it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.
It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Now, would you please tell me which of these things is inapplicable for a homosexual couple? Be as specific as you want to. I have the sneaky suspicion that you will pretend that this question was never presented. Prove me wrong!

When the woman or man are for all known reasons unable to reach conception (whatever reason) of a new life then there is always the possibility of a miracle. History has shown us that a couple who was once thought unable to have child can still have a child for an unknown reason. The history could be this last year or maybe from scripture. So your point is made mute so long as there is a possibility of procreation and they are open to procreation.

A couple performing oral sex can “hope” for a miracle. It takes a much less astonishing “miracle” to conceive when the woman has a working set of ovaries and an intact uterus (performing oral sex) than it would take for a couple performing “prescribed” sex without a set of ovaries and without a uterus. (And the word you were attempting to use is “moot”, not “mute”.)

Look at the physical properties of the human body and it is clear to see that the sexual organs of a man and woman are meant for each other and not for the same gender. There is no argument to made for homosexuality unless one rejects reason and facts.

The sexual organs can be stimulated without an intercourse. There is a fact for you.

You are at the wrong site to be making an argument that scripture is not an argument.

I rather doubt that.

But regardless… if you require proof of what is painfully obvious in nature then it will not matter what proof is presented since you are blind to it.

Thank you. I am declared “blind” now… how precious. Is this what you call “charitable” behavior?

 

[survive]

The sex organs are also known as the reproductive organs and are parts of the reproductive system. Species that cannot reproduce sexually have no reproductive organs and no sexual desires, because sexual intercourse cannot propagate their species. With or without knowledge of the Creator of the bodies of various species, the facts of the body are there to observe. Yes, all parts can be stimulated that have nerves. No, one form of stimulation is not the equivalent of another. The stomach can be stimulated without digestion, and can digest matter other than nutritious foods. But it is a piece of the digestive system and swallowing a piece of paraffin wax is not the same sort of activity as eating a fresh chef salad even if the stimulation of the stomach is equal in intensity.

 

[Spock]

The sex organs are also known as the reproductive organs and are parts of the reproductive system. Species that cannot reproduce sexually have no reproductive organs and no sexual desires, because sexual intercourse cannot propagate their species. With or without knowledge of the Creator of the bodies of various species, the facts of the body are there to observe. Yes, all parts can be stimulated that have nerves. No, one form of stimulation is not the equivalent of another. The stomach can be stimulated without digestion, and can digest matter other than nutritious foods. But it is a piece of the digestive system and swallowing a piece of paraffin wax is not the same sort of activity as eating a fresh chef salad even if the stimulation of the stomach is equal in intensity.

You analogy is pretty good, so let’s analyze it a bit further. Yes, the stimulating part can be done all sorts of different ways, and not all of them are “valuable” for one specific purpose. Eating a good, nutritious gourmet food will have double use, stimulating the palate and giving nutrition. Eating a harmless, but good tasting substitute, which has no nutritious value only stimulates the palate. Just because it has a single purpose, it does not become “evil”, just like performing sex for pleasure only does not make that activity “evil”.

 

[Areopagite]

You still use the terms which imply a human user. The computer is also made by conscious, living beings. I am talking abou the world completely devoid of life. There is an avalanche, due to an Earthquake. There is no “goodness” or “badness” involved in that.

I used terms which imply a human user insofar as I was talking about artifacts (things made by humans). But once an artifact is made, you can talk about the goodness or badness of the thing in itself, independent of what humans feel about. Also, humans could hypothetically not exist of course, and we could (hypothetically) talk about animals having good or bad things happen to them (which you seem to agree about). A deer could get wounded by another animal … and that would be bad for the deer, no matter what human user may be in existence or not. Now, can natural, inanimate things have a kind of ontological goodness that can be taken away? I’m not sure what the metaphysicians would say about that … because I suppose that a natural, inanimate thing will always been a natural, inanimate thing no matter how much you smash it. It doesn’t lose it’s nature as an inanimate thing … so I suppose you can’t take away it’s ontological goodness. On the other hand, you could say that a planet getting sucked into a black hole is bad for the planet, right? In any case, I’m not sure what you mean by “you still use terms that imply a human user” as an indication that ontological goodness is a faulty concept. An artifact (like a hammer) can be used by a human or not, but whether it’s used or not is actually irrelevant to whether it’s a good hammer or not.

You still use the terms “subjective” and “relative” as synonyms. They are not.

Sorry, I was never clear of how you were distinguishing them. My argument though, I would say, is still valid whether it’s talking about subjectivism or relativism.

That is a very tall order. Go for it, if you want to.

Okay.

First, there is no “natural law” that I am aware of. There are “laws of nature”, but that is quite different. Second, to have a law, which explicitly forbids a helpful behavior toward others is “immoral” - in my book.

The term** “natural law”** is a very common one throughout the history of thought. Many atheists have used the term as well. It refers to the objective standards of how one should act as found in human nature. This is distinguished from** “civil law**” which are artificially instituted rules that may correspond to the natural law or may not both in good ways and possibly bad ways. Ideally, civil law should create rules that help people conform their lives to natural law. There is absolutely no other reason for civil law to exist other than for this reason.

Once again, your use of the term “helpful” is still amorphous. Things can be helpful to people in many ways. You can help someone commit crimes … but is that good? You need to come up with a better word because it’s way too ambiguous. In any case, you claim that “a law that explicitly forbids a helpful behavior towards others is immoral” seems to be an absolute statement and an indication that you believe in natural law. Although, you add “in my book” but I have no idea what you mean by that.

Also, you seem to suggest that the expired parking meter law thing is an unjust law, and if you’re right, then there is no obligation to obey that particular civil law. ** An unjust law is no law at all, as the saying go** (that means, if a civil law contradicts natural law, then the civil law does not have to be obeyed).

It is far from obvious. First, the majority of the Germans disagreed with the policy, so it was not “moral” in the sense that it was generally accepted. But that is not the point.

It could be generally accepted depending on what group of Nazis you’re looking at.

Let’s take another example, slavery. In the US it was the general concensus that blacks are inferior, they can be justly and rightfully kept as chattel, bought and sold. (Guess where did they get the justification for this?) In that society keeping slaves was moral. We consider such practice immoral. Who is right? “We are” - most people would say. We can justly and rightly condemn that practice. Even though that time is now gone, we take the “moral highground” and condemn the practice. I wonder, what would be their line of reasoning which would convince the slaveholders?

“In that society keeping slaves was moral” … what? No, it wasn’t. I hope you don’t believe that. Having slaves is never moral. People claimed that it was moral, but it actually wasn’t. The civil law here was contradicting the natural law. If you don’t agree with this, then you would have to say, “I think slavery was okay back then.” But, you’re probably not saying that. Or are you?

You could also say since some people believed the earth was flat back then, you could say, “The earth was flat back then.” Even though that time is now gone, we take the “scientific highground” and condemn that idea.

Now let’s apply the same reasoning to the Biblical times, where “indentured servitude” was morally accepted. Regardless of the fact that these two only differ in name, but not in substance, let’s be “charitable” and say that they are really different. If it was “morally right” back then, it would be morally right today - if there would be an unchanging standard of morality.

I guess you’re asking “Why would God allow so many bad things to be done by so many characters in the Bible” right? Not only slavery but also keeping concubines and whatnot. Well, in short,** God allowed this but did not approve of it.** It was always morally wrong, but salvation history proceeded slowly and gently and gradually re-established the natural law among mankind. In short. I could explain more about this if you want.

The principle is objective, its acceptance or rejection is subjective. In my eyes it is the optimal social behavior - in our times.

So, you are saying that the [inverse] golden rule is a truth of objective morality (congratulations, you believe in the existence of the natural law), but you’re saying that some people don’t accept it (also very true). So, then you agree that morality doesn’t change, but that people can make artificial laws that claim to follow nature but really don’t. If you say that, we are in profound agreement. If you’re not saying that, boy, it sure looks like you are (or, at least, sometimes).