Morality without God?

[PRmerger]

As long as you’re not breaking any committment you’ve made to someone else, PR…

Well, let’s see if Tyrion feels the same way.

If so, then he ought not inject “love” into the argument. At all.

 

[PRmerger]

As long as you’re not breaking any committment you’ve made to someone else, PR…

Incidentally, what constitutes a “commitment” in your understanding?

Does a commitment mean: until we both mutually decide to part?
If so, why? Why must a person be forced to stay with someone that he doesn’t love any more?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski

**So are you implying that for a law to be valid it must be moral in relation to God’s laws? **

That was Voltaire’s opinion, and it’s mine too.

The alternative is that you let atheists make the law. How is that going to sail with you?

Just right?

 

[PRmerger]

Incidentally, what constitutes a “commitment” in your understanding?

Does a commitment mean: until we both mutually decide to part?
If so, why? Why must a person be forced to stay with someone that he doesn’t love any more?

Or maybe, since love isn’t necessarily required, I ought to amend my question to: why must a person be forced to stay with someone that he doesn’t want to have sex with anymore?

What type of nebulous commitment holds 2 people (or perhaps 3 or more? if there is someone here who thinks it is moral for multiple sex partners–or whatever that activity is called when a bunch of folks get naked and “do it”–to engage in sex, as long as they’re “committed” to each other) **together for the purpose of sexual pleasure alone? **

 

[Bradski]

**So are you implying that for a law to be valid it must be moral in relation to God’s laws? **

That was Voltaire’s opinion, and it’s mine too. The alternative is that you let atheists make the law. How is that going to sail with you? Just right?

In the first instance, the alternative to Christian is not just atheist. People other than Christians believe in God and there are many people who are neither Christian or atheist. But we have the start of an answer – I’ll assume that when you said ‘God’s Law’ you were thinking of Christianity (Peter can confirm his acceptance of this or not as he sees fit).

So for a law to be valid it must be morally acceptable to Christians. Does it have to be Catholic or will any denomination be OK?

Incidentally, what constitutes a “commitment” in your understanding? Does a commitment mean: until we both mutually decide to part? If so, why? Why must a person be forced to stay with someone that he doesn’t love any more?

A commitment to each other must naturally, and by definition, be mutual. It’s hardly worth making a commitment to someone who is not going to reciprocate. But a decision to part, although it can be mutual, need not necessarily be so. But if you do decide to sail off, it’s good form to let the other person know.

Preferably in advance of you making another commitment elsewhere.

 

[PRmerger]

But a decision to part, although it can be mutual, need not necessarily be so. But if you do decide to sail off, it’s good form to let the other person know.

I am curious about exploring this further with you. I hope you saw my amendment in which I stated that, as per your paradigm, love is not required for this commitment between 2 (or more) people who wish to pursue committed pleasurable sex with each other.

So let’s say there’s 2 (or more) people who have said: we agree–we want to have committed, pleasurable sex with each other exclusively!

I want to know why a commitment would be sought for such an arrangement? Why would anyone “vow” to do this?

And, upon making this “vow”, why do you feel it’s ok (albeit not preferable) to unilaterally leave this commitment?

 

[PRmerger]

And, upon making this “vow”, why do you feel it’s ok (albeit not preferable) to unilaterally leave this commitment?

And how is this different from cheating on your committed partner? If she wants to have committed pleasurable sex with you, but you have decided to leave and have sex with someone else, against your (prior) partner’s intentions, is this wrong?

I hope you see why this entity of “committed sex for pleasure alone” is a foreign concept to me that I want to wrap my mind around it a bit.

 

[Bradski]

Sheesh, let me answer the first question before you ask the next….

…why must a person be forced to stay with someone that he doesn’t want to have sex with anymore?

I’m not sure either. In my case, either partner can end the relationship, so you’re not forced to stay with each other.
In your case, if you’re Catholic and having sex, then you must be married. If you don’t want to stay with someone and have sex with them anymore (i.e. get divorced), then it’s not allowed. You’ll have to take that question up with the Vatican.

What type of nebulous commitment holds 2 people (or perhaps 3 or more? if there is someone here who thinks it is moral for multiple sex partners–or whatever that activity is called when a bunch of folks get naked and “do it”–to engage in sex, as long as they’re “committed” to each other) **together for the purpose of sexual pleasure alone? **

Personally I can’t envisage making a commitment with more than one person. I’m sure it happens. In fact I know it happens. But you’d have to ask someone who has experience of that how they manage it.

If it’s just two people, then all’s good. They can be in a commitment and have sex with each other, or not be in a commitment and have sex with each other plus as many other people as they can persuade. As long as it doesn’t frighten the horses.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski

So for a law to be valid it must be morally acceptable to Christians. Does it have to be Catholic or will any denomination be OK?

It has to be based upon the majority, whoever they are. Let them find the truth together.

The majority certainly are not the atheists, though the atheists, based on current trends, might be the majority in the government. This will not stand if Christians of every denomination work together to defeat the purveyors of godless morality.

The point is: you can’t have two or ten sets of morality running the government. If so, who is going to make the laws and who is going to obey them?

In the past, Christians have done fairly well supporting a dominantly Christian government if they have dominantly Christian rulers.

But the plague of moral decline in our country today is based on the plague of moral disunity. Moral disunity is accomplished by let the moral minority rule over the moral majority.

What is the point of having a majority if the will of the majority is not allowed to prevail?

In other words, what is the point of having a democracy if the majority do not rule?

 

[PRmerger]

Sheesh, let me answer the first question before you ask the next….

Sorry! :doh2:

I’m not sure either. In my case, either partner can end the relationship, so you’re not forced to stay with each other.

So how is that a “commitment”?

Perhaps I ought to ask what your idea of “commitment” is…

 

[Bradski]

So let’s say there’s 2 (or more) people who have said: we agree–we want to have committed, pleasurable sex with each other exclusively! I want to know why a commitment would be sought for such an arrangement? Why would anyone “vow” to do this?

I should make clear that this is just my personal view on this. It’s not a liberal, atheist, left wing, anti-Christian, socialist etc etc viewpoint. Nothing onto which you can tack a label. It’s just mine. Nobody else has to follow it, or agree to it. Except that my wife believes pretty much what I do, hence the years together.

If two people want to have exclusive sex with each other (for whatever reason), then they obviously have to make a commitment to each other that they will keep their end of the bargain. They don’t have to love each other to do this, although quite often there are strong feelings for each other.

And, upon making this “vow”, why do you feel it’s ok (albeit not preferable) to unilaterally leave this commitment?

If you have made a mutual commitment and you want to leave, you have to end it. If you don’t tell your partner that you’re ending it and have sex with someone else, then you are breaking the commitment. I’m sure you recognise the difference.

And it is obviously not practical to have a commitment when both parties have to agree to ending it. Nobody wants to go through life living with someone for whom they no longer have feelings, so it’s ended unilaterally more often than not. Tough call sometimes, but them’s the breaks.

And how is this different from cheating on your committed partner? If she wants to have committed pleasurable sex with you, but you have decided to leave and have sex with someone else, against your (prior) partner’s intentions, is this wrong?

Well, it’s not an ideal situation. But as I said above, I’m sure you appreciate the difference in ending a commitment and breaking one. In the first instance you are admitting that it’s not working out and you need to move on (generally with the excuse: ‘Look, it’s not you, it’s me. I’m at fault!’). In the second instance you are cheating on someone.

And I don’t need God to tell me that this is the morally correct thing to do (he said, trying to keep it on topic).

 

[PRmerger]

In your case, if you’re Catholic and having sex, then you must be married. If you don’t want to stay with someone and have sex with them anymore (i.e. get divorced), then it’s not allowed.

Right. That’s what a commitment is, isn’t it? At least, that’s the Catholic understanding. You are committed to (an idea, a person, a place, a job…) even when you don’t feel like it.

Otherwise, if you’re not committed, to, say, the job, you can leave when you don’t feel like going in, right?

Personally I can’t envisage making a commitment with more than one person. I’m sure it happens. In fact I know it happens. But you’d have to ask someone who has experience of that how they manage it.

Well, we’re talking hypotheticals here. You need to be able to extrapolate your atheistic position of “Sex is moral when it is consenting and not breaking a commitment.”

If you have some other criteria, you haven’t specified. It does appear that you’re giving a to multiple partners (at the same time, as long as it’s consenting and committed).

Oh, and I assume with your horses comment that your moral criteria is for human to human sex only.

 

[Bradski]

So for a law to be valid it must be morally acceptable to Christians. Does it have to be Catholic or will any denomination be OK?

It has to be based upon the majority, whoever they are. Let them find the truth together.

The majority of Christians? So if I said that gay marriage was being considered in Australia and the majority of Christians supported it, you’d accept that with good grace? australianmarriageequality.com/wp/a-majority-of-christians-support-marriage-equality/

If I said that the majority of Catholics in the US have no problem with same sex marriage, you’d accept that as well?

 

[Bradski]

Right. That’s what a commitment is, isn’t it? At least, that’s the Catholic understanding. You are committed to (an idea, a person, a place, a job…) even when you don’t feel like it. Otherwise, if you’re not committed, to, say, the job, you can leave when you don’t feel like going in, right?

If I’m working for a particular company, I have a duty to give them my best work. I am committed to them in that sense. But I don’t take a job thinking that this is it for life. Neither do you go out with every girl thinking that this is my partner for life. And I don’t do work for another company while I’m working for the first (if you get the analogy).

You need to be able to extrapolate your atheistic position of “Sex is moral when it is consenting and not breaking a commitment.”

I think that you’re looking at this in a very limited way. As I said above, this isn’t an ‘atheist’ position, although you might think so if the only people you know are Christians who would have the same problems as you in coming to terms with this.

This is my idea of morality. I don’t see anything wrong with sex outside of marriage or sex just for the hell of it. I believe that if you both make commitments to each other you should stick to it and if you break that commitment (as opposed to ending it), it’s morally wrong.

It does appear that you’re giving a to multiple partners (at the same time, as long as it’s consenting and committed). Oh, and I assume with your horses comment that your moral criteria is for human to human sex only.

As I said, if you need someone’s (name removed by moderator)ut on multiple partnerships, then you need to ask someone with that sort of experience. I’ve got no objections to others doing it, but it’s not something that floats my boat.

 

[PRmerger]

I should make clear that this is just my personal view on this. It’s not a liberal, atheist, left wing, anti-Christian, socialist etc etc viewpoint. Nothing onto which you can tack a label. It’s just mine. Nobody else has to follow it, or agree to it. Except that my wife believes pretty much what I do, hence the years together.

Fair enough.

If two people want to have exclusive sex with each other (for whatever reason), then they obviously have to make a commitment to each other that they will keep their end of the bargain. They don’t have to love each other to do this, although quite often there are strong feelings for each other.

Yes, I understand that. But I don’t understand the “commitment” part. It sounds more like an “agreement”, which is: we do it until one of us doesn’t want to anymore.

And with this type of arrangement I really don’t see why it would be cheating or harmful or immoral (pick your poison), if one partner had sex outside of this agreement. He doesn’t want to be in that exclusive arrangement anymore. He should not be forced to remain in it, right?

If you have made a mutual commitment and you want to leave, you have to end it. If you don’t tell your partner that you’re ending it and have sex with someone else, then you are breaking the commitment. I’m sure you recognise the difference.

No, actually I don’t.

I could see the difference if it was mutual.

But if one person really, really wants to have pleasurable sex with her partner, but he doesn’t want to anymore, (because their agreement/arrangement/commitment involves nothing more than his wanting to do this), then why isn’t it wrong for him to leave when she still wants it?

I don’t understand the immorality of what you’re positing, Bradski.

He doesn’t want to have sex with her anymore. She wants to have sex with him only.

You’re saying that he can leave and have sex with another person because he’s told her he wants out of this arrangement? Even if it devastates her?

Really?

And it is obviously not practical to have a commitment when both parties have to agree to ending it. Nobody wants to go through life living with someone for whom they no longer have feelings, so it’s ended unilaterally more often than not. Tough call sometimes, but them’s the breaks.

Then how does this square with your original premise:

As long as you’re not breaking any committment you’ve made to someone else, PR…

One person in this commitment is devastated.

This is moral?

And I don’t need God to tell me that this is the morally correct thing to do (he said, trying to keep it on topic).

Agreed.

 

[PRmerger]

If I’m working for a particular company, I have a duty to give them my best work. I am committed to them in that sense. But I don’t take a job thinking that this is it for life. Neither do you go out with every girl thinking that this is my partner for life. And I don’t do work for another company while I’m working for the first (if you get the analogy).

You are being inconsistent here, Bradski.

You seem to have an objection to the Catholic notion of staying with something (marriage) even if you don’t feel particularly disposed to being there at the moment.

Yet you seem to agree that when one makes a commitment to a job, one needs to do the job, even if he doesn’t feel particular disposed to being there at the moment.

The analogy is not to lifetime commitment, but to your objection that Catholicism mandates staying in a marriage even if you don’t feel like being there.

You advocate staying when you don’t feel like it for other concepts (like a job), but don’t let Catholicism advocate staying when you don’t feel like it for marriage.

Why the double standard?

 

[Bradski]

You advocate staying when you don’t feel like it for other concepts (like a job), but don’t let Catholicism advocate staying when you don’t feel like it for marriage.

Why the double standard?

I don’t advocate staying in a job that one doesn’t like. I did say that I personally feel obliged to do my best when I’m employed by someone, but that doesn’t preclude me from looking elsewhere for something if I’m unhappy where I am.

A personal relationship is obviously different, but notwithstanding if the relationship is any way meaningfull one should try to work out any problems, if it doesn’t work out, then it can be best to end it.

I appreciate the Catholic high regard for marriage. If you make a lifetime committment (whether it is just between the two of you or a formally recognised and/or church sanctioned marriage) then you should not treat it lightly. You should realise that there will be problems and you should do your best to overcome them.

However…if it simply isn’t working, then it should be ended. It serves no useful purpose staying (or being forced to stay if you’re Catholic) in a partnership that neither party wants. Or indeed, if either party wants it to end.

 

[Sair]

Belief in a rational Deity is far more reasonable, coherent and consistent than the self-refuting fantasy that reason is magically produced by irrational, purposeless forces…

That would require the deity you believe in to be rational - have you actually read the Bible?

 

[Sair]

Morality is dependent on purpose. We cannot say that one ought to do something unless we know the purpose of life. Good actions are those who further life’s purpose and bad actions are those who hinder life’s purpose. Now without God or the transcendent, I think there can be no purpose to life. To say that everyone can choose a purpose is tantamount to saying that there is no purpose.

Then what do you propose as life’s purpose?

If I were to throw a spanner in the works of your probable answer, that the purpose of life is to seek the specifically Christian conception of God and then to die and go to said God, then there are certain actions carried out by professed believers that are limiting if not actually destructive to the possibilities of life that would pass muster; by the same token, there are arguments you cannot logically make - for example, the idea that innocents go directly to heaven, to unity with your God, means that any abortion fulfils the purpose of our existence with very limited earthly travail. If one can expedite the fulfilment of one’s ultimate purpose, why bother with earthly life at all? Surely death is a mercy (no matter how much we might instinctively try to avoid it) if life is just a way-station on the road to eternal paradise…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That would require the deity you believe in to be rational - have you actually read the Bible?

Oh, I see. You refuse to understand how to read the Scriptures and then blame God for not squeezing into your liberal, secular world view. Now I begin to see what happened to you.

You have turned yourself into god, that’s all.

Linus