"If it doesn't hurt anyone..."

[ynotzap]

And this is why moral absolutism fall apart in the real world.

I like to re-word that statement: The real world falls apart with-out moral absolutism. With relative morality truth is what you make it, subjective, out of contact with reality. With absolutism truth is what it is, objective, in contact with reality. Relative truth,is like a boat without a rudder being blown about by the winds (smoke) of opinions.

When you guys engage in intellectual discussions, and come up with Fandoms, my Little Pony, Bronies, and Furries, sounds a bit like Star Trek, people living out their fantasies, and this is considered the real world, God help us! They walk among us! How can one speak of the spiritual world of morality, when they are stuck on the physical plane. A world where the only reality is what you can sense.

 

[Winterwolf00]

I like to re-word that statement: The real world falls apart with-out moral absolutism. With relative morality truth is what you make it, subjective, out of contact with reality. With absolutism truth is what it is, objective, in contact with reality. Relative truth,is like a boat without a rudder being blown about by the winds (smoke) of opinions.

When you guys engage in intellectual discussions, and come up with Fandoms, my Little Pony, Bronies, and Furries, sounds a bit like Star Trek, people living out their fantasies, and this is considered the real world, God help us! They walk among us! How can one speak of the spiritual world of morality, when they are stuck on the physical plane. A world where the only reality is what you can sense.

Well first I’m not sure what fandoms have to do with moral anything so I’m gonna go ahead and disregard that bit.

Secondly I never claimed support of what you call Moral Relativism as I don’t even know what definition you’re using, I only oppose Moral Absolutism.
Moral Absolutism falls apart in the real world because you cannot address a complex and complicated world with unchanging and uncompromising standards.

 

[vz71]

Then how can society hold people accountable for their misdeeds?

Indeed.

If one speeds down the street at twice posted limit, but does not get caught by the police, society will not hold them accountable.

Holding someone accountable for their actions presupposes knowledge of their actions.

 

[vz71]

There is more to demonstrating something is true then just sight.

Correct.

We have a very limited perception of reality.
And that is why we depend upon the church to lead us.

 

[vz71]

That is not moral relativism, it is a starting point for civil law.
Why is murder, theft, kidnapping, or rape wrong?
Because it causes harm to someone in some way without any consent from the victim.
Sometimes that is justifiable in the real world, but it is still a good rule of thumb to follow for the most part.

Are we sure it is because of harm or is it because of the denial of God given freedoms.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Correct.

We have a very limited perception of reality.
And that is why we depend upon the church to lead us.

And how does your Church demonstrate?

 

[Winterwolf00]

Are we sure it is because of harm or is it because of the denial of God given freedoms.

I don’t know about the ‘god-given’ part but to answer your question…yes.

 

[Bradski]

I like to re-word that statement: The real world falls apart with-out moral absolutism.

If the world was black and white, right and wrong, then it would be easy to determine what we should all do. But it’s not.

Driving at 50mph is perfectly OK on a freeway. But not down a suburban street. Then again, if it’s foggy or icy, then 50mph would be wrong on the freeway. Killing someone for the hell of it is wrong, but killing someone to protect your country, your family or even yourself is OK. Drinking a few beers is OK, but drinking enough so that you are incapable of rational thought is not. Having sex without being married is OK, but not if it causes some harm to either party or to others.

If you want to say that driving at 50mph is wrong, you have to give reasons. Likewise beer consumption. Likewise sex. If you think it’s wrong in all circumstances, then you have to show reason.

Nobody has, other than saying: well, it just is…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Driving at 50mph is perfectly OK on a freeway. But not down a suburban street. Then again, if it’s foggy or icy, then 50mph would be wrong on the freeway. Killing someone for the hell of it is wrong, but killing someone to protect your country, your family or even yourself is OK. Drinking a few beers is OK, but drinking enough so that you are incapable of rational thought is not. Having sex without being married is OK, but not if it causes some harm to either party or to others.

Was just listening to a real world variation of this today. It had to do with deciding who is it better to kill. Sounds horrible at first, but it was related to autonomous vehicles and how to handle scenarios where there’s no apparent solution for every one to get out alive and unharmed; if a person abruptly jumps out to the street the car could continue straight and risk hitting him or make a wild turn and risk a head-on collision with a car in another lane. It’s hard to come up with a solution to this, especially considering that the solution will be replicated to other cars running the same software and the decision you make on this is going to be applied to multiple instances of the scenario.

Programming a car to make a decision on who is to be put at risk of injury and death feels wrong. But not addressing the scenario at all is still a pathway that could put people at risk of injury of death. It’s not an easy problem.

 

[ynotzap]

If the world was black and white, right and wrong, then it would be easy to determine what we should all do. But it’s not.

Driving at 50mph is perfectly OK on a freeway. But not down a suburban street. Then again, if it’s foggy or icy, then 50mph would be wrong on the freeway. Killing someone for the hell of it is wrong, but killing someone to protect your country, your family or even yourself is OK. Drinking a few beers is OK, but drinking enough so that you are incapable of rational thought is not. Having sex without being married is OK, but not if it causes some harm to either party or to others.

If you want to say that driving at 50mph is wrong, you have to give reasons. Likewise beer consumption. Likewise sex. If you think it’s wrong in all circumstances, then you have to show reason.

Nobody has, other than saying: well, it just is…

How do we determine what is right and what is wrong? When we delve into th;is problem we are delving into problems of morality, ethics, the rule of right reasoning governing human conduct Human conduct is effected by rational choices and determined by the truth discovered by human intelligence. There is a basic principle that can be used to determine the right rule of conduct, what is right or wrong.

What ever is objectively conducive to the well being of the individual, and collectively of society, for society shares in a universal common humanity is right, and therefore good. Whatever is not objectively conducive to the well-being of the individual, or society is wrong, and bad.

eg. If a person indulges in sensual activity such as sex outside of marriage, then he is motivated by his senses, and desire for that pleasure. The ultimate purpose of sex is propagation but in an enviroment where children (the responsibility incurred in marriage) can be reared, educated etc. The means to an end, has become an end in itself In this case the person has not corresponded to the dictates of his rational nature, but to his sense appetites. To do so is to act irrationally, which is not objectively conducive to the well being of the individual, and certainly not to the well being of society, as society is made up of propagated individuals. If a child was propagate out of wed-lock then who would care for the child? The use of Sex was certainly not conducive to the well-being of the child. So to have sex apart from marriage, is to go against one’s rational nature being ignored for the sake of sense pleasure. To separate the means from its intended end (purpose) is to act irrationally. the purpose of sex is self-evident, and the acceptance of the responsibility that is incurred by it use is the intelligent, rational response, and therefore objectively conducive to the well-being of the individual, as well as society. There are universal moral laws that effect all of humanity and if we abide by them we are objectively abiding what is conducive to the well-being of every one, which make is right, and good. But ignorance is universal, and so the God who created us gave us a set of moral rules, but since some are gods unto themselves, they make their own rules, and these rules are relative to each ones interpretation. that’s the conflict of human conduct. God would not create us and let us flounder in ignorance but in His love for His creation gave us the truth, which unfortunately is not accepted by many.

 

[Bradski]

If a person indulges in sensual activity such as sex outside of marriage, then he is motivated by his senses, and desire for that pleasure.

If you can confirm that you have sex and have always had sex, and will always have sex without being purely motivated by your senses (that is, doing it because it feels good), then you might have a point to make.

But then I think it might only apply to you and very few others.

 

[ynotzap]

If you can confirm that you have sex and have always had sex, and will always have sex without being purely motivated by your senses (that is, doing it because it feels good), then you might have a point to make.

But then I think it might only apply to you and very few others.

It is good, and even holy to be motivated by the senses to have sexual pleasure, when in marriage, because rationally one knows that he will accept the responsibilities that come with it’s enjoyment, as God intended. The means has never been separated from it’s purpose or end. the pleasures are good in themselves, but when used in an irrational way, it is not the pleasures that are evil, or irrational, it is the act or choice of an intelligent rational person, acting contrary to his nature, and contrary to the moral law. Human nature is afflicted is a truth we know in our Faith, an inclination to being influenced by the sensual appetites contrary to the dictates of our informed conscience. I say informed because many minds are not informed with the truth. Ignorance is another affliction of human nature, and weakness, that is we may know it is wrong, but we don’t have the will power to resist the influence of our passions or feelings

 

[Lion_IRC]

Another thread about this topic, I need some really good answers here. This particular claim made by moral relativists everywhere always seems to stump me.

…“If it doesn’t hurt anyone there is nothing wrong with it.” I always get stuck here…how do I refute this point?

Would date rape be OK if the victim had no idea what had happened?

Would theft be OK if nobody noticed what was stolen?

Would it be OK let children watch a person doing something doesn’t hurt anyone?

Thats how I usually challenge such a claim.

 

[Bradski]

Would date rape be OK if the victim had no idea what had happened? Would theft be OK if nobody noticed what was stolen? Would it be OK let children watch a person doing something doesn’t hurt anyone?

I think the test would be: would the person be harmed if they were to know. And in the case of children, I’m not sure what they’d be watching, but if it was upsetting, then harm would be done.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I think the test would be: would the person be harmed if they were to know.

Nice try at a dodge.
I stipulated that they “had no idea what had happened”
Care to answer on that basis?

…And in the case of children, I’m not sure what they’d be watching, but if it was upsetting, then harm would be done.

What possible harm could there be from watching two adults do something that "doesn’t hurt anyone"
Ever heard of the Folsom St Fair?

 

[Bradski]

Nice try at a dodge.
I stipulated that they “had no idea what had happened”
Care to answer on that basis? What possible harm could there be from watching two adults do something that "doesn’t hurt anyone"
Ever heard of the Folsom St Fair?

They may have no idea at the time. Maybe you had no idea that you were drugged last night and raped. But if you were told, then would you think - hey, no problem?

We’ve all read cases where very drunk girls have been raped. It’s wrong, because if they had any choice in the matter, they would have refused. If something is done to you that you wouldn’t want done, even if you didn’t realise it at the time, then it is wrong.

And as for watching two adults do anything at all (yeah, I can tick that box), then again, a point which seeMs extraordinarily difficult to get across, if there is no harm done, then it is OK.

That automatically doesn’t include people who have not reached what we might describe as the age of consent.

 

[tonyrey]

C’mon, Tony. It’s a hypothetical. Work with me here…

But this isn’t ignorance of harm. It’s the absence of harm. And note that I am not saying that sex before marriage is harmless in every case.

How do you know when sex before marriage is harmless? Can you specify the circumstances in which it harms no one?

Drinking beer is not harmfull, but drinking too much can be. Eating fatty foods is OK as long as it’s not a major part of your diet. Driving at speed can be dangerous but only relative to the conditions.

Same with most things. They could be harmful in some way at some time in some circumstances. Same with sex outside marriage. But it is patently false to say it is harmful, period. it’s needs some qualifier.

Driving at 50mph is wrong…in a built up area.
Eating deep fried chicken is wrong…if you do it every day.
Drinking beer is wrong…if you drink enough so that it becomes a problem.
Sex before marriage is wrong…if…

It’s not that anyone can’t fill in the rest of that. It’s quite easy. It’s just that they believe it’s against God’s will, therefore they won’t.

Sex before marriage is wrong if the couple believe it is not necessary to make a public commitment to each other. They are not isolated individuals but members of society to whom they have moral obligations. They are debasing themselves if they have intercourse merely for pleasure because - as John Keats, a non-Christian, pointed out - sex without love is bestial. The devastating effect of the permissive mentality is evident in the millions of abortions, teenage pregnancies, one-parent families, neglected children, unjust divorce settlements and suicides in our society. Hell exists on earth when nothing is regarded as sacred. In the words of John Stuart Mill:

**“It is indisputable that the being whose capacities of enjoyment are low, has the greatest chance of having them fully satisfied; and a highly endowed being will always feel that any happiness which he can look for, as the world is constituted, is imperfect. But he can learn to bear its imperfections, if they are at all bearable; and they will not make him envy the being who is indeed unconscious of the imperfections, but only because he feels not at all the good which those imperfections qualify.

It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question.” **

 

[Bradski]

They are debasing themselves if they have intercourse merely for pleasure because - as John Keats, a non-Christian, pointed out - sex without love is bestial.

If you haven’t had sex just for pleasure, then…you are in a distinct and incredibly small minority. Can you tell us if that is so?

But then who is to say that sex outside marriage is not loving? Is it not loving an hour before you get married yet loving an hour after?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . who is to say that sex outside marriage is not loving? Is it not loving an hour before you get married yet loving an hour after?

There is not much point in talking about hypotheticals.

I am quite sure that there are many people who professed eternal love for the few months they were together.

Sex without love is at best a waste of time. There is a comedian who quipped something to the effect that you know you’ve got to make changes when you wake up in the morning to find some pretty woman beside you looking over at you with an expression that suggests she has hit rock bottom. If it was not clear earlier, it certainly is when you are that guy.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Would date rape be OK if the victim had no idea what had happened?

Would theft be OK if nobody noticed what was stolen?

Would it be OK let children watch a person doing something doesn’t hurt anyone?

Thats how I usually challenge such a claim.

How is there no harm being done in any of those cases?