How the sexual toxicity of the 1960s has harmed the Church

[Bradskii]

Vietnam certainly wasn’t worth the blood and bullets being thrown into it.

I’ve visited the War Museum in Hanoi. It is brutal. The Vietnamese don’t pull any punches at all. Likewise the museum in Siem Reap in Cambodia. That so many people suffered for so long for nothing is heartrending. Tragedy is a word that’s thrown about too often these days but it’s so applicable to that conflict.

At least Ed got to try out some new weapons.

 

[edwest211]

You’ll have to talk to the Pentagon about that. They sure didn’t consult with me.

 

[JimG]

Certainly the Vietnam War resulted in a tragic loss of life. But remember that Ho Chi Minh could have at any point ended it by simply stopping shipping troops south. Loss of life was immaterial to his plan. For a balanced retrospective on the war, see Michael Lind’s book “Vietnam, the Necessary War.

But now it seems the topic has been irretrievably sidetracked.

https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Vietnam-The-Necessary-War/Michael-Lind/9780684870274

 

[edwest211]

Nothing is irretrievable. However, as you’ve done, people need to know history which provides information about national motivations. The North could have signed a cease-fire or peace treaty at any time. The other question is: What were the French doing there in the 1950s?

 

[o_mlly]

If I may…

Of course you may. But the posts are revealing that the evolved morality of the Austroatheoso hominid is quite different to that of the Niceatheoso hominid. First, we must determine which of these two hominids is the more evolved.

By the way, the word “man” is inclusive. Remember, we value concision. Wordiness always invites muddle.

 

[o_mlly]

I do not believe that every man creates his own moral code. Moral codes are the products of societies.

I do not believe that every man creates his own moral code.

It follows then that:

• some men have the moral code imposed by an external agent.
• the moral code exists that is objective for some men.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

I do not believe that every man creates his own moral code. Moral codes are the products of societies.

I do not believe that every man creates his own moral code.

It follows then that:

• some men have the moral code imposed by an external agent.
• the moral code exists that is objective for some men.

On point one, imposed is a strong word, and I would go further to say it is inaccurate.

As to the second point, it doesn’t follow either.

I view how we receive our moral codes is largely the same way we go through the process of language acquisition as children. In both cases, we are born, or at least develop in our first few years, an innate ability for language and moral conduct (along with other cognitive and social abilities). We are taught are morals, much as we learn language. Morals are no more forced upon us than learning our native tongue.

 

[Bradskii]

o_mlly:

niceatheist:

I do not believe that every man creates his own moral code. Moral codes are the products of societies.

I do not believe that every man creates his own moral code.

It follows then that:

• some men have the moral code imposed by an external agent.
• the moral code exists that is objective for some men.

On point one, imposed is a strong word, and I would go further to say it is inaccurate.

As to the second point, it doesn’t follow either.

I view how we receive our moral codes is largely the same way we go through the process of language acquisition as children. In both cases, we are born, or at least develop in our first few years, an innate ability for language and moral conduct (along with other cognitive and social abilities). We are taught are morals, much as we learn language. Morals are no more forced upon us than learning our native tongue.

Thanks for putting it so succintly.

 

[o_mlly]

I do not believe that every man creates his own moral code.

It follows then that:

• some men have the moral code imposed by an external agent.
• the moral code exists that is objective for some men.

On point one, imposed is a strong word, and I would go further to say it is inaccurate.

As to the second point, it doesn’t follow either.

I view how we receive our moral codes is largely the same way we go through the process of language acquisition as children. In both cases, we are born, or at least develop in our first few years, an innate ability for language and moral conduct (along with other cognitive and social abilities). We are taught are morals, much as we learn language. Morals are no more forced upon us than learning our native tongue.

OK. Let’s try again.

I do not believe that every man creates his own moral code.

Man has an innate sense of moral conduct. (Natural Law)
Man has the conventional morality proposed to him. (Nurture and culture)
Morals are not forced upon us. (Human freedom)
Men disagree.

In society, the king or the majority rule. Does the tyranny of the ruler or the majority determine the morality that is true? Does might make right?

If not, in disagreement what determines the true morality. Why could the Germans not morally treat the Jews as sub-human as that was their culture? The Mongols and Vikings had a culture of raping conquered peoples and that made rape (for them) morally acceptable? Or is morality objective? That is, morality is not determined by any thinking mind but only by right thinking minds.

The language analogy relates. The human innate ability for language does not prefer English to French or Chinese to Russian. But all the various language have objective rules that are not matters of human choice, that is the rules are not subjective.

 

[Bradskii]

By the way, the word “man” is inclusive.

I tend to accept ‘Man’ (capital M) as being shorthand for mankind. I thesedays (and it’s happened not so long ago) try to use a mixture of he and she to balance the prejudice. And by that I mean my prejudice.

 

[niceatheist]

I’m not sure why you want o belabor the point. No, kings don’t create morality, though with enough effort, I’m sure a tyrant can affect significant changes.

As to the Nazis, well, they fed off of about two thousand years of anti-Semitism. They didn’t invent fear and hatred of Jews, they were just the most skillful at using it.

As to language, languages have rules, but those rules themselves change over time. The whole field of genetic linguistics is about explaining how proto-languages evolve over time. Languages can change in structure to an extraordinary degree. Proto-Indo-European was a highly inflected language, and yet, English, and to a certain extent the other Germanic languages, have lost that inflection.

This goes very far to show that culture, including morality and language, are malleable over time.

 

[Bradskii]

o_mlly:

I do not believe that every man creates his own moral code.

It follows then that:

• some men have the moral code imposed by an external agent.
• the moral code exists that is objective for some men.

On point one, imposed is a strong word, and I would go further to say it is inaccurate.

As to the second point, it doesn’t follow either.

I view how we receive our moral codes is largely the same way we go through the process of language acquisition as children. In both cases, we are born, or at least develop in our first few years, an innate ability for language and moral conduct (along with other cognitive and social abilities). We are taught are morals, much as we learn language. Morals are no more forced upon us than learning our native tongue.

OK. Let’s try again.

I do not believe that every man creates his own moral code.

Man has an innate sense of moral conduct. (Natural Law)
Man has the conventional morality proposed to him. (Nurture and culture)
Morals are not forced upon us. (Human freedom)
Men disagree.

In society, the king or the majority rule. Does the tyranny of the ruler or the majority determine the morality that is true? Does might make right?

If not, in disagreement what determines the true morality.

Your point list is spot on. That about majority rule is not. It contradicts what you already said. That morality is not forced upon us.

Bending to the will of tyranny (of an individual or the majority) does not constitute a moral decision.

 

[o_mlly]

Your point list is spot on. That about majority rule is not. It contradicts what you already said. That morality is not forced upon us.

Bending to the will of tyranny (of an individual or the majority) does not constitute a moral decision.

No contradiction. As you correctly point out, one may comply to belong but still disagree.

The society decides what is licit, not moral. The loosening of the laws on sodomy did not make sodomy moral.

Man’s understanding of morality changes but not morality itself. As our understanding evolves, behaviors are more often restricted, not loosened. “No, Ghengis, you may not rape and pillage.”

Beware movement in the other direction.

Oh, by the way, did you ask the cow’s consent before throwing him on the “barbie”?

 

[edwest211]

The cow was already dead

 

[Bradskii]

Man’s understanding of morality changes but not morality itself. As our understanding evolves, behaviors are more often restricted, not loosened. “No, Ghengis, you may not rape and pillage.”

Beware movement in the other direction.

Oh, by the way, did you ask the cow’s consent before throwing him on the “barbie”?

You are making the same mistake again. ‘Man’ doesn’t determine morality. Whatever ‘Man’ (ie society) determines is right or wrong or whatever society determines to be right or wrong has nothing to do with morality. That is decided by the individual. That is, the individual determines if what is right or wrong is moral or not.

Just because a society promotes or restricts rape does not make whatever they decide moral or not. It beats me why this is thought to be true. Majority rule does not determine morality. Can it be put any simpler?

 

[Bradskii]

Oh yeah. The cow.

Well, eating a cow prompts no moral angst as far as I am concerned. But I am willing to have a discussion at any time about why you think we were made carnivores. As were so many animals.

Plus any discussions on animal husbandry, cruelty to animals, vegetarianism, the role of abbatoirs etc etc. ‘Eating cows’ is a bit simplistic as a matter for dicussion.

 

[edwest211]

From the Practical Catholic:

"Pope Benedict XVI goes on to say:

" We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. The church must defend itself against threats such as “radical individualism” and “vague religious mysticism”. [emphasis added]

Commentary by the Practical Catholic

“Pope Benedict does not play language games, he is unconcerned with the postmodernist’s corner on untruth. Neither should we be. Notice how he calls relativism a “dictatorship” instead of agreeing that no values and no Truth are the way forward for society. What many fail to recognize is that imposing nihilism and arbitrary tribalism is a form of dictatorship. Where untruth or half truth is the common order, there can only be oppression. Political correctness has asked us to abandon our value-laden language and to pick up a new language proper to the secular forum. However, this secular newspeak is value-laden against the traditional claims of the Western world and as such, is a poison rather than a new order. We can and should bring our own conviction laden language to the table, if we’re going to have any sort of real dialogue at all. Misinformation and restrained convictions are not the proper building blocks for a democracy.”

 

[LilyM]

Bradskii:

Your point list is spot on. That about majority rule is not. It contradicts what you already said. That morality is not forced upon us.

Bending to the will of tyranny (of an individual or the majority) does not constitute a moral decision.

No contradiction. As you correctly point out, one may comply to belong but still disagree.

The society decides what is licit, not moral. The loosening of the laws on sodomy did not make sodomy moral.

Man’s understanding of morality changes but not morality itself. As our understanding evolves, behaviors are more often restricted, not loosened. “No, Ghengis, you may not rape and pillage.”

Beware movement in the other direction.

Oh, by the way, did you ask the cow’s consent before throwing him on the “barbie”?

No they are not always more restricted.

‘Yes, we must extend the right to vote to poor people/women/Native Americans/blacks’

‘Yes, we must encourage women to be truck drivers, POTUS or astronauts and men to be ballet dancers, nannies or stay-at-home Dads if they want’

‘Yes we should grant some aid to.other countries because the problems of our neighbours are to an extent our own problems’

 

[Thorolfr]

Whenever someone tells me how wonderful things used to be, I get out my copy of Michael Lesy’s Wisconsin Death Trip with its disturbing newspaper stories and images from around Black Falls, Wisconsin from between 1890 and 1910. According to the blurb at Amazon:

The last decade of the 19th century was, for some Americans, a time when great fortunes were to be made. For many others, however, the period was a time of economic dislocation, when the gap between city and countryside, rich and poor, grew ever wider. As the Indian Wars ended and the Gilded Age extended into America’s first Imperial Age, social critics such as Mark Twain and William Dean Howells began to examine the dark side of the American dream: violence, poverty, degenerate behavior, suicide, and insanity.

In the late 1960s, another desperate time, historian Michael Lesy took a long look at fin-de-siècle America. Examining a collection of several thousand glass plate negatives and historical documents from Jackson County, Wisconsin, he concocted a sprawling treatise on a past that had been willfully forgotten…Lesy documents the unsettling record of one small corner of rural America, turning up accounts of barn burnings, attacks by gangs of armed tramps, threatening and obscene letters, death by diphtheria and smallpox (the Wisconsin townsfolk had, some years, to attend several funerals a week), alcoholism, madness, business and bank failures, and even a case or two of witchcraft.

 

[o_mlly]

You are making the same mistake again. ‘Man’ doesn’t determine morality. Whatever ‘Man’ (ie society) determines is right or wrong or whatever society determines to be right or wrong has nothing to do with morality. That is decided by the individual. That is, the individual determines if what is right or wrong is moral or not.

No mistake. Read my post again. Your confusion emanates from the error of collapsing ontology into epistemology. The reality of an objective morality is singular and independent of any thinking mind. You would have as many moralities as their are thinking minds. Was rape an immoral act in 1600? Yes. Are direct abortions moral after 1973? No. Make your own list.

Does the morality change? No. Do thinking minds change? Yes. Thinking an act moral does not make it so nor does thinking an act immoral make it so. Knowledge or lack of knowledge does change culpability but the morality of the act does not. Morality is objective.

Because of human freedom, the individual can decide to accept or reject moral proposals but doings so does not change the truth of the proposal. The individual is quite capable of rejecting truth. Was the earth ever flat? Was the earth ever the center of all things? Lot of people thought so for a long time but, like morality, thinking the earth flat does not make it so.