Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[PRmerger]

No argument there. I’m not sure why people are associating promiscuity with the fact that we often indulge in sex just because it feels good. Just because it feels good doesn’t mean that you are free to do it with anyone at all.

This is nonsensical, contradictory and illogical.

IF sex can be for enjoyment only–THEN you should have no problem with your wife indulging in it, for enjoyment only.

But we all know…yes, we all know…that sex is always MUCH, MUCH more.

It CANNOT be an action devoid of meaning that simply involves pleasurable contact with someone’s genitals.

For the human person, any consensual encounter with the genitals NECESSARILY is an encounter with the mind and spirit of the other as well.

 

[Bradski]

Perhaps the misunderstanding is the result of your phrasing.

You say: “… we often indulge in sex just because it feels good,” but then you add “…doesn’t mean that you are free to do it with anyone at all.”

Doesn’t the condition of “doesn’t mean that you are free to do it with anyone” a limiting condition of “indulging …**just because **it feels good?” It isn’t, then, “just because it feels good” but “just because…” given the following conditions."

Well obviously. We are talking morality here. ‘Having sex just because it feels good…with a child’ is obviously wrong. ‘Having sex just because it feels good…with someone against their will’ is obviously wrong.

But maybe you can tell me what is wrong with a loving married couple having sex because it feels good? Because, hold the front page here…that’s what almost everyone does.

Except Charles. He does it to satisfy some primal urge.

And please, none of the usual ‘using someone’s body for personal pleasure’. I refuse to be considered as just a sex object, thanks very much.

 

[PRmerger]

But maybe you can tell me what is wrong with a loving married couple having sex because it feels good?

No one is saying it’s wrong.

Let’s go back to your sentences which prompted this (emphasis mine):

By you:

That’s debateable. It’s in regard to sex and whether it could be considered for enjoyment only.

And by Tandem:

In my world there is nothing wrong with having sex with an equally willing adult partner, for amusement only.

It’s where you’ve added the ONLY to it that you’ve made the fundamental(ist) error.

No one can willingly have sex for amusement or enjoyment ONLY. There is an intimacy that transcends merely a mutually pleasurable massage of the genitals.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Ah but your temperature scale is an invention - other scales are available. In that sense the scale is relative. You could remove any trace of invention by asking a more fundamental question such as “is there an objective measure of heat in molecules?”.

All measurements require some invention: You have to select a reference; and then your measuring activity is a comparison (a relation) between the object being measured and the reference. Still, this has nothing to do with what is called “relativism” in philosophy.

By comparison, “Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material” sounds like an invention - other laws are available. You could remove any trace of invention as Jesus does when he asks "What is written in the Law? How do you read it?”, and is given the more fundamental answer "‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”.

Now the asexual being may or may not have a law about wearing mixed cloth, but wouldn’t have a law about condoms, it’s not relevant to he/she/it. But presumably if from a social species, would see the relevance of ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’ (if not from a social species, even that wouldn’t be part of his/her/its morality, if morality makes sense for a non-social species).

So I think on one world a specific law might be good for A but not B, on another good for B but not A, on others good for both or bad for both or irrelevant. Implying we cannot devise any specific laws and hope they are absolute across all possible worlds.

But we could ask, as Jesus does, what is the fundamental law behind all the others, and we may agree with the answer He is given. However, that doesn’t give us any specific answers about mixed cloth or condoms.

Yes, I agree. I think that love would be a kind of moral universal. And it is clear to me that with love one has to be creative (inventive): Given the knowledge you have about the other and her actual circumstances, your love can be expressed in many different ways. It depends on you. Love is a kind of “relative absolute”.

 

[e_c]

My emphases.

Well obviously. We are talking morality here. ‘Having sex just because it feels good…with a child’ is obviously wrong. ‘Having sex just because it feels good…with someone against their will’ is obviously wrong.

But maybe you can tell me what is wrong with a loving married couple having sex because it feels good? Because, hold the front page here…that’s what almost everyone does.

Except Charles. He does it to satisfy some primal urge.

And please, none of the usual ‘using someone’s body for personal pleasure’. I refuse to be considered as just a sex object, thanks very much.

A lot of things are obvious apparently. Is it obvious that you have just taken a position that these acts are always wrong? Is it obvious that the lack of clarity in enumerating them is a huge problem (how young is a “child” for instance)?

As for what people DO, that is not so relevant. The question is what people OUGHT to do.

The lack of a distinction between the act in general and in practice continues to plague this argument. In general (separate from any individual act), we see several kinds of goods that sex provides which may motivate the act, along with certain restrictions for its proper use. In practice, those goods may be desired in a good way or bad way, depending on whether or not they are within the restrictions the act in general. Any goods might be jettisoned for the sake of obtaining the other goods… the restrictions do not need to be respected for the act to exist.

You act to obtain a certain good (pleasure) but it is within the context of a mutual agreement on playing by the rules. So inasmuch as you also desire that the rules be followed, you want the goods that those rules provide, which in a way informs the action and modifies its practice and delectation (intimacy, reciprocation, expression of commitment, etc.).

But anyway, what if violating these restrictions just feels like the empathetic thing to do? Maybe she really wants it but just needs me to show her. Maybe it will make my wife desire me that much more because she thinks she might lose me. Etc. Run wild with the idea. EMPATHY IS A BAD GROUNDS FOR MORALS BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY TO ACCOUNT FOR RIGHT EMPATHY AND WRONG EMPATHY. It is ultimately emotivist. “Boo adultery!” “Hooray monogamy!”

 

[PumpkinCookie]

LOL!

Why would that be a breach of contract but eating lunch with him wouldn’t?

Why is that, PC?

Think about it.

Because eating sandwiches with others isn’t adultery. A husband and wife have a literal contract where they promise not to have sex with others. By having sex with another, the woman you mention is in breach of contract.

Again, the woman in question should not have sex with the pool boy/concession stand attendant NOT because sex is NOT for enjoyment only, but because it involves adultery. Similarly, the hungry man should not eat the baby NOT because eating is NOT for nutrition only, but because it involves murder.

Ok…

And, again, no moral person views sex for ENJOYMENT ONLY.

If that were so, you’d permit your wife to have some enjoyment ONLY with the pool boy.

QED

Sure. It’s only when you divorce it from its natural purpose that you have a disorder.

Explained above. To further clarify:

I would not permit my wife to sleep with other men because she promised to sleep only with me. We exchanged this mutual promise. That is the definition of a contract. That’s what makes sleeping with the pool boy immoral. I am perfectly fine with her having sex for enjoyment ONLY…with me of course . It’s not improper telos of the sex that makes it wrong, but rather the contractual obligation of the agent.

Hopefully that clarifies the problem with your analogy.

 

[PRmerger]

Because eating sandwiches with others isn’t adultery. A husband and wife have a literal contract where they promise not to have sex with others.

Yep.

And why is that?

Because…

sex cannot be about…

enjoyment only.



No one signs a contract with his spouse that he will never see a movie with another person besides his wife.

Think about it…

PC: not sure why you’re being so recusant here. I *know, *with 100% certainty, that you do not believe that sex can be for amusement only.

If you truly believed that it can be so, then you will tell your wife to go ahead and enjoy her some sex with her barrista…as long as she tells you that it will be for her amusement alone.

 

[PRmerger]

I would not permit my wife to sleep with other men because she promised to sleep only with me. We exchanged this mutual promise.

You’ve said this now several times and I’m quite curious about this.

You and your wife wrote this in your contract with each other?

Is that what you are saying?

If so, what was the wording?

If not, what exactly do you mean?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

This is nonsensical, contradictory and illogical.

IF sex can be for enjoyment only–THEN you should have no problem with your wife indulging in it, for enjoyment only.

But we all know…yes, we all know…that sex is always MUCH, MUCH more.

It CANNOT be an action devoid of meaning that simply involves pleasurable contact with someone’s genitals.

For the human person, any consensual encounter with the genitals NECESSARILY is an encounter with the mind and spirit of the other as well.

Sorry to jump in here, but I want to spell out the problem with this argument again to make it crystal clear.

I have no problem at all with my wife indulging in sex for enjoyment ONLY…as long as it is with me of course. Why am I not then OK with her having sex with anyone else for enjoyment ONLY? Because…we’re married! She made a vow not to have sex with others, and so did I.

I understand that you are eager to show that sex is not just for enjoyment only, but you’re going to have to find another way to demonstrate this because the thought experiment you’ve sketched here fails to isolate the problem sufficiently.

How about this: sex cannot be for enjoyment only since it can be shown to be the cause of reproduction. We know, for a fact, that sex is necessary for reproduction. So, it’s obvious that it can’t be for enjoyment only. Similarly, we know that eating is necessary for continued survival, so we know for a fact that the eating cannot be for enjoyment only.

It makes sense to have norms and laws about which people reproduce with each other, and so generalized promiscuity seems like a bad idea. Sure, it works for most of the animal kingdom, but everything is so much more complicated for us!

 

[PRmerger]

She made a vow not to have sex with others, and so did I.

How did you guys do this? In front of witnesses?

Written?

If part of your contract is breached then does that nullify your marriage?

Will there be legal consequences?

I am quite curious about this vow not to have sex with someone else! And I wonder why you have this vow but not a vow to never get coffee with someone else?

It does seem to me that the fact that you made such an explicit vow in your wedding contract limns this fact quite clearly: sex CANNOT be about amusement only.

Otherwise, you’d have to make a vow not to go to Disney World with someone else, eh?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

You’ve said this now several times and I’m quite curious about this.

You and your wife wrote this in your contract with each other?

Is that what you are saying?

If so, what was the wording?

If not, what exactly do you mean?

Only very few contracts need to be written to be enforceable and valid. “Promise to be true to you…etc…” We exchanged promises, it’s a real contract. If I breach it, she can sue me for damages (alimony, child support, property, etc).

 

[Bradski]

So an act like sticking a child with needles may be good, or it may be bad.

The conditions determine this. And there is NO CONDITION in which it would be permissible to stick needles into this baby for fun.

Congratulations. You have removed the concept of relativity from morality. All aspects of morality are now objective. All you need to do is describe how harm is caused by listing as many conditions as you’d like and then, when you have personally decided that it is wrong, relative to those conditions, declare it to be an Objective Truth. Actually, we don’t really need the term ‘objective’ any more. If there is no relative morality, we don’t need a term to describe anything that isn’t relative. It’s just ‘morality’.

But really, all you are doing is describing harm in a way that brooks no argument and then declaring it to be Objective. Because who could possible argue! You don’t need reasons. It just IS wrong. Any fool could see it. What a system!

In regard to morality, it is now impossible for you to declare anything relative. Have a go. Let’s see how your system works.

You act to obtain a certain good (pleasure) but it is within the context of a mutual agreement on playing by the rules. So inasmuch as you also desire that the rules be followed, you want the goods that those rules provide, which in a way informs the action and modifies its practice and delectation (intimacy, reciprocation, expression of commitment, etc.).

Sure. No problem. But I’m not sure of your point. Sex always comes with rules. No children, only willing partners, not in public etc. Are you suggesting that if there is a degree of emotional attachment and intimacy it cannot be simply for pleasure? That sex is always about increasing the emotional attachment and developing intimacy? Well, I’m pretty certain that it does from time to time. Did somebody say never happens?

EMPATHY IS A BAD GROUNDS FOR MORALS BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY TO ACCOUNT FOR RIGHT EMPATHY AND WRONG EMPATHY. It is ultimately emotivist. “Boo adultery!” “Hooray monogamy!”

Empathy is the source of morality. And you are using the word in the wrong way. If I feel empathy for someone, I don’t necessarily feel well disposed to them. It’s not a feeling. It’s an ability. An ability to understand what others are feeling.

‘Empathy is the experience of understanding another person’s condition from their perspective. You place yourself in their shoes and feel what they are feeling.’ psychologytoday.com/topics/anxiety

 

[PumpkinCookie]

How did you guys do this? In front of witnesses?

Written?

If part of your contract is breached then does that nullify your marriage?

Will there be legal consequences?

I am quite curious about this vow not to have sex with someone else! And I wonder why you have this vow but not a vow to never get coffee with someone else?

It does seem to me that the fact that you made such an explicit vow in your wedding contract limns this fact quite clearly: sex CANNOT be about amusement only.

Otherwise, you’d have to make a vow not to go to Disney World with someone else, eh?

At a wedding ceremony. Yes witnesses. Doesn’t need to be written to be valid and enforceable. If breached, it doesn’t nullify the agreement automatically but does make it voidable. Yes, it entitles the harmed party to damages. Most marriages are similar.

No, this vow doesn’t prove what you want it to prove. It proves that sex is important (probably because it leads to reproduction and therefore creates parental responsibilities) but is not in itself enough to prove that sex is not for enjoyment only.

Drinking coffee, going to Disney World, eating ice cream: none of these things cause reproduction. As a civilization, our ancestors decided it made sense to regulate sex since indiscriminate reproduction would cause confusion in multiple ways.

 

[PRmerger]

Only very few contracts need to be written to be enforceable and valid. “Promise to be true to you…etc…” We exchanged promises, it’s a real contract. If I breach it, she can sue me for damages (alimony, child support, property, etc).

Oh. So you didn’t promise not to have sex with someone else explicitly.

You vowed to be “true” to each other.

Good. Very good.

And I think the fact that you didn’t explicitly state in your vows, “And I will never engage in sexual intercourse with another person”…but this was made implicit in your vow to be “true” to each other…

proves our point.

Sex, as you yourself alluded to in your vow to be “true”, simply CANNOT be for entertainment or amusement only.

Otherwise, your being “true” to your wife would include other things that are for entertainment or amusement only, like going to Disney World.

You and your wife didn’t implicitly vow to never go to Disney with someone else, correct?

 

[PRmerger]

No, this vow doesn’t prove what you want it to prove. It proves that sex is important (probably because it leads to reproduction and therefore creates parental responsibilities) but is not in itself enough to prove that sex is not for enjoyment only.

You know what proves that you don’t view sex as for enjoyment only?

The fact that you won’t let her have sex with someone else.

 

[PRmerger]

Congratulations. You have removed the concept of relativity from morality. All aspects of morality are now objective. All you need to do is describe how harm is caused by listing as many conditions as you’d like and then, when you have personally decided that it is wrong, relative to those conditions, declare it to be an Objective Truth. Actually, we don’t really need the term ‘objective’ any more. If there is no relative morality, we don’t need a term to describe anything that isn’t relative. It’s just ‘morality’.

Well…I’m fine with that.

And, it seems, then you must be fine with it too, otherwise you’re going to have to describe a situation in which it would be moral to torture a child for fun.

I keep asking you to do this…and you haven’t yet done so…

Give us a situation, and we will list all the conditions as you’d like, and then we can decide, objectively, whether it’s right or wrong.

If it depends, then it’s relative…and your statement above is…wrong.

If we can, then it’s objective and absolute…and I’m ok with that, too.

So I have no problem with this…but as an atheist, you will be experiencing some cognitive dissonance, no?

 

[PRmerger]

Are you suggesting that if there is a degree of emotional attachment and intimacy it cannot be simply for pleasure?

LOL!

Seriously?

That’s like your wife saying, “I am only going to get a massage.”

She comes home with some fancy fingernails and toenails while still insisting she got ONLY a massage.

She says, “Are you suggesting that when I also got a pedicure and a manicure I didn’t only get a massage, Bradski? I certainly did get ONLY a massage. (And a mani and pedi too)”

I think we would all have your back if you responded: “Ummm…yes. You didn’t simply get a massage.”

 

[PRmerger]

Drinking coffee, going to Disney World, eating ice cream: none of these things cause reproduction.

Good observation. It’s a nonsequitur, but it’s true, sure.

Drinking coffee, going to Disney, eating ice cream and…sex can all just be for amusement only.

Oh wait, one of those things doesn’t belong because you wouldn’t let your wife do that thing with her ex-boyfriend, despite her protests that it’s just for fun alone.

 

[e_c]

**1. **Sure. No problem. But I’m not sure of your point. Sex always comes with rules. No children, only willing partners, not in public etc. Are you suggesting that if there is a degree of emotional attachment and intimacy it cannot be simply for pleasure? That sex is always about increasing the emotional attachment and developing intimacy? Well, I’m pretty certain that it does from time to time. Did somebody say never happens?

**2. **Empathy is the source of morality. And you are using the word in the wrong way. If I feel empathy for someone, I don’t necessarily feel well disposed to them. It’s not a feeling. It’s an ability. An ability to understand what others are feeling.

‘Empathy is the experience of understanding another person’s condition from their perspective. You place yourself in their shoes and feel what they are feeling.’ psychologytoday.com/topics/anxiety

1. Those rules are things you would or would NOT call “non-situational” or/nor “objective and absolute”? If you would, you seem to be contradicting yourself…

Regarding the distinction - I already made it twice. There is the act and its goods in general (or potential), and there is the actual instantiation of the act for whatever motives the agent wills. This distinction solves the problem PR and PC are having, but I guess nobody reads my icky long posts.

1. It’s a source of desires to act in certain ways. This is not in question. What is in question is whether or not “empathy” creates rules that must be followed. There are innumerable problems… First, what exactly is empathy? The definition is bad - understanding it from their perspective HOW? Secondly, it provides no course of action within itself - I understand how this person feels, NOW HOW OUGHT I ACT? Thirdly, it is at best an educated guess - you are not that person, so you can’t ever really be sure how they feel. Fourthly, one clearly need not put himself in another’s position to do the right thing to that person on purpose - I can just know that this or that is the right thing, a little like you “just know” that torturing babies is wrong without the need to go through the exercise of putting yourself in their place. Fifthly, it seems apparent that empathizing can prevent one from doing his duty - I feel bad for my employee, but I need to fire him so the company can survive so I am employed and can provide for my family. Finally, there is no clear punishment-reward paradigm for acting “empathetically,” especially if one is the biggest kid on the block - if I can run the whole show, why does it matter if I am empathetic or not? (This relates closely to the second issue I raised.)

There are at least these problems.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Oh. So you didn’t promise not to have sex with someone else explicitly.

You vowed to be “true” to each other.

Good. Very good.

And I think the fact that you didn’t explicitly state in your vows, “And I will never engage in sexual intercourse with another person”…but this was made implicit in your vow to be “true” to each other…

proves our point.

Sex, as you yourself alluded to in your vow to be “true”, simply CANNOT be for entertainment or amusement only.

Otherwise, your being “true” to your wife would include other things that are for entertainment or amusement only, like going to Disney World.

You and your wife didn’t implicitly vow to never go to Disney with someone else, correct?

First, implicit agreements are also valid. A meeting of the minds (not necessarily explicitly or written) is required for a contract to form. In fact, one of the Catholic grounds for a decree of nullity is that there was no true meeting of the minds, or both parties did not have the same implicit assumptions about the agreement, at the time of the transaction. Sexual fidelity, however, is a very common implicit assumption in a marriage contract.

I am trying to distill the confusion here and reduce everything to the simplest terms.

Why is it ok for my wife to have coffee with others but not sex with others? Is it because one is for enjoyment only and the other is not?

No.

It’s because we promised not to have sex with others and did not promise not to have coffee with others.

Why?

Because that is one of the central regulations of marriage, since our ancestors have found it useful to regulate sexual relationships since sex is necessary for reproduction. Our ancestors did not regulate coffee consumption (I mean…Mormons do, but whatever) because coffee drinking does not result in something as important as reproduction.

Here is another analogy:

What is the purpose of shelter?

Let’s say: for survival only.

If you wanted to prove that it isn’t for survival only, would you submit as evidence the observation that you cannot simply go into any house anywhere and start living there?

Of course not. There are other reasons why you can’t just live anywhere you please (property rights). Similarly, there are other reasons why you can’t just have sex with anyone you please.