Non-theistic foundation of morality?

[Micosil]

No, I would be against that because we promised sexual exclusivity to each other. She can have sex with me for enjoyment only any time she wants.

But this is the point.

WHY was sex a thing that you both considered worthy of a mutual vow of exclusivity?

What is the difference between sex and other activities that are done for no other purpose than enjoyment?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

And why would you do that but not promise never to play tennis with anyone else?

Because tennis doesn’t cause reproduction.

 

[PRmerger]

Because tennis doesn’t cause reproduction.

Egg-zactly.

So sex is in a very special category of NOT FOR ENJOYMENT ALONE.

QED.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

But this is the point.

WHY was sex a thing that you both considered worthy of a mutual vow of exclusivity?

What is the difference between sex and other activities that are done for no other purpose than enjoyment?

The other activities don’t cause reproduction and the resulting responsibility.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Egg-zactly.

So sex is in a very special category of NOT FOR ENJOYMENT ALONE.

QED.

Yes, I’m glad we were able to agree on the observable fact of nature that sex results in procreation.

Sooooo, how do you argue against the polyamorous people? They don’t buy your adultery example. What next?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, I’m glad we were able to agree on the observable fact of nature that sex results in procreation.

Sooooo, how do you argue against the polyamorous people? They don’t buy your adultery example. What next?

The same way you argue against the WBC–you offer moral facts and then discuss.

 

[o_mlly]

… Sure, time spent together in any activity may result in a couple feeling “closer” to one another, but it is only through the marital act that true unity can occur.

Is there something more to this that I’m missing?

Your (name removed by moderator)ut is most welcome to a thread gone wild.

Non-theistic sex -

1. 
   *]exclusivity contract
   *]emotional attachment
   *]pleasure
   *]specie survival
   
   Theistic sex -
   1. 
      *]Sacramental union
      *]unitive
      *]pleasure
      *]procreation
      
      Looks pretty much the same ends to me with one exception. In Catholicism, there is only one other act which unites one to another in greater intimacy than marital sex – Eucharist. Eucharist is the summit of our temporal relationship with Jesus and the source of our eternal relationship with the Trinity.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, I’m glad we were able to agree on the observable fact of nature that sex results in procreation.

You would be surprised to see how many folks don’t know this.

Or wish to create a disordered view of sex which separates it from procreation.

I continue to be astonished by folks who:

-separate sex from procreation
-separate marriage from sex
(and here I mean both ways–sex doesn’t have to be in marriage, and marriage doesn’t have to have sex)

NB: Please do not reference Joseph and Mary here. If you give birth to the Son of God, then we can clearly put you on the list of “marital exceptions”.
We’re talking what’s normally the case here.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Your (name removed by moderator)ut is most welcome to a thread gone wild.

An understatement TO SAY THE LEAST!

This thread has gone insane. :hypno::sad_bye:

 

[Bradski]

Psychologists, anthropologists and philosophers may disagree with you:

The fact that a person or a group of people or a society appears to ignore harm when deciding whether to commit an act or not doesn’t detract from the fact that it is the basis for deciding on the morality of said act. Acts that you might argue ignore any harm caused would cause greater harm, in the belief of the person carrying out the act, then by not carrying out that act. Honour killings and human sacrifice for example.

The man who kills his daughter for having an affair believes that the harm caused to his family’s honour outweighs the physical harm he will cause his daughter. Sacrificing people causes less harm than a bad harvest would, which people would believe would be the case without the human sacrifice.

It’s not just physical harm. It includes harm to one’s honour, one’s sense of family or tribal loyalty, one’s pride. Which is not to say that using any of these reasons means that the act automatically becomes moral. You decide that yourself.

 

[Bradski]

Or, you could simply say: it is always immoral to torture a child for fun.
And: it is always immoral to rape someone
And: it is always immoral to hate someone because of the language he speaks
And: it is always immoral to kill an innocent human being

Again, you seem to think that everything is absolute. Again, using your logic, it can be easily shown that any moral act that you describe must be absolute, which makes a nonsense of even discussing the differences between relative and objective moral acts. Again, you have avoided answering the following question. So again I will ask it:

If you give me an act that you consider to be morally correct or morally acceptable (nothing amoral thanks), according to your line of reasoning, it must be absolute. Always. If that is not so, then give me one that is relative only. It can’t be difficult. Anything will do.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not just physical harm. It includes harm to one’s honour, one’s sense of family or tribal loyalty, one’s pride. Which is not to say that using any of these reasons means that the act automatically becomes moral. You decide that yourself.

Ok. So he decides that for himself. He decides it’s the moral thing to do.

Is it?

Is it moral because he decided that it is?

Or is morality something that is outside of his decision?

 

[PRmerger]

Again, you seem to think that everything is absolute.

I gave 4 examples of things that I (and you) believe to be morally absolute.

Not sure how you conclude “you seem to think that everything is absolute”.

Is 4 “everything” in the atheistic world?

 

[PRmerger]

If you give me an act that you consider to be morally correct or morally acceptable (nothing amoral thanks), according to your line of reasoning, it must be absolute. Always. If that is not so, then give me one that is relative only. It can’t be difficult. Anything will do.

A morally relative act: spanking your toddler

 

[Bradski]

A morally relative act: spanking your toddler

Why are you doing it?

 

[e_c]

Is sex analogous to going bowling or drinking coffee? If not, why not? You’ll say, because those activities are for enjoyment only, and sex isn’t, because adultery is upsetting. Imagine if you drew the analogy between a husband and wife going bowling, eating ice cream, and having sex together. You wouldn’t be able to show that sex is not for enjoyment only in that case. So, you bring in a red herring (adultery) and point at our revulsion toward adultery as evidence of your understanding of the telos of sex.

Your example fails because it employs 1) false analogies and 2) a red herring.

I have explained this at length as carefully as I’m able. Please, someone else chime in and tell me if I’m getting through, and if not, why not.

You aren’t crazy. The explanation PR is giving is opaque, which I’ve shown twice now doesn’t need to be such. There is a difference between the express motivation for an individual action and the context in which that action is desired to take place. Acting outside that context violates a rule which destroys a good which was habitually being obtained. The equivocation between “this individual act” and “this kind of act in general” is also part of what is causing the problem.

“QED”

Bradski - No response to my numerous challenges to “empatheticism”? We’ve been around this block before… I still can’t see how “do the least harm” (or anything similar) is in any way even close to being a good holistic means of directing action. Which kind of harm? How do we calculate all these things? What is inherently “wrong” about harming someone? Why does it matter to a non-believer anyway? Etc.

Let’s try starting here: “Do good, avoid evil.” From there we can proceed to, “Strive to attain happiness.” I’ve pointed out before that these threads are doomed if they don’t begin with a discussion about happiness… Look at what this one has turned into! It’s the Wild West of CAF! (But it’s great, isn’t it…)

 

[PRmerger]

Why are you doing it?

Because he ran into the street.

 

[PRmerger]

But this is the point.

WHY was sex a thing that you both considered worthy of a mutual vow of exclusivity?

What is the difference between sex and other activities that are done for no other purpose than enjoyment?

Egg-zactly.

No one makes a vow never to drink coffee with anyone else except your honey.

Why is sex different if it can be for amusement only?

Answer: because we all know that when someone claims to have sex with the barrista, and “it didn’t mean anything. It was for my enjoyment only!” that this person is lying.

 

[Bradski]

YBradski - No response to my numerous challenges to “empatheticism”? We’ve been around this block before… I still can’t see how “do the least harm” (or anything similar) is in any way even close to being a good holistic means of directing action. Which kind of harm? How do we calculate all these things? What is inherently “wrong” about harming someone? Why does it matter to a non-believer anyway? Etc.

Let’s try starting here: “Do good, avoid evil.” From there we can proceed to, “Strive to attain happiness.” I’ve pointed out before that these threads are doomed if they don’t begin with a discussion about happiness… Look at what this one has turned into! It’s the Wild West of CAF! (But it’s great, isn’t it…)

Do good, avoid evil. Sounds good. I’d agree with that although ‘evil’ has religious overtones, so can we agree on ‘do good and avoid doing harm’? I think that we can use ‘harm’ because for the life of me, I can’t think of anything that you would describe as evil that wouldn’t, in your opinion, cause harm. I say ‘in your opinion’ because there would be some acts upon which we would disagree. If I thought that there was no harm, then it couldn’t be classed as evil and wouldn’t, in my opinion, be immoral.

In regard to causing harm, this is where empathy comes in. In gives you the ability to understand how an act will affect a fellow traveller. If you discovered that your wife had been playing around with the gardener, then you would understand how someone else might feel if the same thing happened to them. So if you were thinking of asking a friend wife out for a quiet drink with a view to more amorous pursuits, then you would feel a sense of guilt in being party to the liaison. Because you know how the husband would feel.

If there was no empathy (or if you could less if he was hurt), then you might proceed.

So why should we care? Well, this is inbuilt. You can say God built it into us if you like. And I’d suggest that I know how He did it. Feeling compassion for those close to us is entirely natural. Society wouldn’t exist without it. Cooperation would be next to impossible.

 

[PRmerger]

Do good, avoid evil. Sounds good. I’d agree with that although ‘evil’ has religious overtones, so can we agree on ‘do good and avoid doing harm’?

Is adultery still wrong if your wife hasn’t found out, and thus is not harmed by it?