Hi Swan,
You might want to ask yourself where did your ideas, feelings, and attitudes about morality came from to begin with.
That is, what are they based on, what is the basis for your own individual thought about morality.
Your comments are very telling:
I would guess that you, and probably most people here, would not be able to identify that the argument you made as is classic Utilitarianism as formulated by the English liberal philosopher and liberal social reformer Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832).
Bentham “became the leader of a group known as the Phiosophical Radicals who spearheaded the movement for liberal reform of prisons, censorship, education, the laws governing sexual activity, corruption in public institutions-in short, what has since become a familiar left-liberal agenda for social policy.”
Bryan Magee, The Story of Philosophy, 2001 p.182 ( I can’t recommend this book).
Bentham’s Secular moral philosophy was based on the principle “[t]hat action is best (right or moral) which procures the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers.”
Thus, according to Bentahm’s Utilitarian moral philosophy, the rightness or wrongness of an action was to be determined solely based on its consequences (the
end), and not the actual act or action itself (the** means**).
That which is good, according to Bentham, is that which gives
pleasure. And that which is bad, according to Bentham, is that which causes a person
pain.
According to Bentham, the right or moral course of action was the one that would maximize the excess of pleasure over pain, or else minimize the excess of pain over pleasure.
Bentham, and his followers like John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) and Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), applied these principles to private morality, as well as to political, legal, and social policy.
Bertrand Russell’s father was the liberal politician Lord John Russell (1792-1878) who was a member of the House of Commons and twice elected Prime Minister of Great Britain between 1846-1866).
Another important principle that factored into the calculation was that “[e]verbody is to count for one, and nobody for more than one.”
You see these Utilitarian arguments being made very much today.
So, for instance, if two homosexuals marry and it isn’t hurting, i.e., causing any physical pain to anyone, and it gives the homosexual couple pleasure, why shouldn’t homosexual marriage be legal??
If a mother has an abortion, the unborn fetus is not a human, cannot feel (much) pain, and the mother is happy because she doesn’t have to care for an unwanted child, then abortion should be legal?? She should have a right as an individual to choose.
If two people fornicate, and gives the couple physical pleasure, why shouldn’t fornication be legal??
And you can apply the argument to other moral situations or questions as well (stem-cell research, forcing pharmacists to dispense the abortion pill, contraception, pornography, video games, etc. any moral situation:
So, IMO, to your Modern way of thinking, the moral issues that should be given precedence and focused on are those that “cause more pain” while sexual moral issues that do not involve human pain should be of no concern:
It’s interesting to me that conservatives are just as fascinated by sex as Larry Flynt, albeit in different ways. The real problems of the world, greed, hunger, exploitation, poverty, etc. barely ever get a mention here, yet what two folks do in the bedroom has everybody all worked up. Greed **causes more pain **than sex, IMO, yet it isn’t as stimulating to the imagination, I guess. Sex sells, yes indeed. **Folks starving in Africa **get little attention unless someone is giving them condoms.
So God’s Moral Teaching and the Gospel’s Moral Teaching, Swan, form no part of your analysis of moral issues.
Thus, you classify sexual sins as not being important moral issues, while those that cause physical pain are important moral issues, e.g., hunger, starvation, war, etc.
You don’t consider the sexual sin as damaging to man’s soul.
And that, my friends, is pure classical Utilitarianism, a Secular moral philosophy that you will find in America’s media, courts of law, schools and universities, business, law, and graduate schools.
So much so that many modern philosophers joke that “U.S.A.” stands for the Utilitarian States of America.
But the media, television, newspapers, don’t inform you about it; they keep the story of Utlitarianism hushed up.
You may study about it if you get a higher education at a university or pursue graduate studies, depending on what you study.
There’s also Pragmatism (a modern philosophy that had its origins at the Philosophy Department of Harvard University), and Nietzcheanism, but I’ll have to write about those another evening).
Where does such information that is reliable come from to determine that contraception is leading to more divorces?
