V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
We are in agreement.
- Status
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
From our upbringing. Our concepts of “good behavior” comes from the relentless feedback from our parents, relatives, teachers, clergymen, etc… As children we are a “tabula rasa”, we have no critical skills, so we mindlessly accept what the authorities tell us. The phrase “brain washing” has very bad connotations, but if you look at it objectively and disregard the emotional overtones, that is exactly what happens to us.
The offsprings of decent people will usually become decent people as well, the children of sociopaths with likely become sociopaths themselves. This relationship is stochastic, not deterministic. But the general trend is true.
B
Bradski
Guest
Despite there being no ‘If’ in that statement, it is implicit. And it is required. Having sex is, in itself, not wrong. Having sex IF xyz may be wrong depending on what xyz actually is. If you have aids, if your partner is a child, if the other person objects, if it frightens the horses etc.
The statement is then, by the way, relative.
I
inocente
Guest
I guess anything’s possible.
O
o_mlly
Guest
The OP asked that I expand on a prior post applying the principle of human rights to the act of fornication.
Once we agree that everyone has a right to life, xyz changes from “may” to “is” becoming: “It is morally evil to directly or indirectly kill an innocent human being.” The relative becomes absolute.
One can now drop the conditional (agreed to be universally true) and make declarative statements regarding one’s obligation to respect the right to life of others.
L
levinas12
Guest
So the “right to life” is the result of brainwashing and has no other basis?
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
There is no “right” to life, but if you believe that there is, this belief comes from your upbringing.
S
STT
Guest
Concepts of right and wrong are illusion in the framework that cause and effect rules. Are we really following any rule when our action (effect) is simply the result of an (name removed by moderator)ut (cause).
B
Bradski
Guest
I don’t believe that you couldn’t imagine a scenario where it would be justified to take an innocent life. 9/11 is the obvious example. So your statement is incomplete. It must read:
It is morally evil to directly kill an innocent person IF…
Fill in the gap as you will and the statement becomes conditional upon that. All moral statements are conditional.
L
levinas12
Guest
I should have said “instinct of self-preservation” rather than “right to life” … isn’t the instinct prior to the belief … that is, innate, something we are born with …
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
That is right. But this is simply a biological “imperative”. Our social environment is much more complicated than “kill or be killed”. The “correct” and “incorrect” social behavior is a learned phenomenon, which we learn in our formative years. I am not sure what your point is. Would you enlighten me?
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I don’t believe these are the same types of “truth”.
Moral truths seem to depend on a shared value.
Only then can we start affirming an “ought” (ie if you do this or dont do that you will contradict your value).
But whence values?
O
o_mlly
Guest
In a logical argument, the truth of the conclusion is dependent on the truth of each premise submitted. Premises are the conditionals. I think you find my argument incomplete not on its merits but its format.
So, to put the argument into the requested format:
It is morally evil to directly kill an innocent person
- IF… you believe that human needs exist and
- if you believe that a human need translates into a human right which creates in oneself, others and the community a reciprocal obligation to respect that right and
- if you believe that one needs to live in order to be human
S
STT
Guest
To the best of out knowledge (according to what science tells us), the world is deterministic.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Here is an excerpt from one article:
Reasons not to fornicate, besides "God said so"
orthodoxwriter.com/2012/03/reasons-not-to-fornicate-besides-god.html
The ultimate “expert” on any subject is, of course, God—but here are ten expert recommendations from the secular world against sleeping/living together before marriage. In one way or another, they all echo the Lord’s commandment.
1. It leads to an increased rate of infidelity.
Both partners need to learn how to control their urges and impulses before marriage. If one or both of you can’t keep your hands off of the other now, a wedding isn’t magically going to teach you how to keep them off of other people in the future. Research on thousands of men across multiple countries confirms this: More sex during dating means more infidelity during marriage.
2. It leads to an increased rate of divorce.
If you sleep with someone you don’t end up marrying, your risk of divorce will be significantly higher once you do get married. In a study of 6,500 married women, the divorce rate was three times higher for those who’d had multiple sexual partners than for those who were never intimate with anyone other than their husbands.
3. It leads to decreased sexual satisfaction in marriage.
People tend to think you have to “practice” physical intimacy before marriage in order to get the most out of it during marriage. One of the most liberal studies ever conducted, however, revealed the opposite: People who were completely abstinent prior to marriage are more satisfied during marriage, particularly those who abstained for religious reasons.
4. It leads to decreased feelings of romance.
Sexual experience with a partner you don’t end up staying with leads to a lessened experience of romance with whomever you do end up with. There’s a direct relationship between the number of your past partners and your feelings of romance with your current partner: The higher the number of partners, the lower the feelings of romance.
5. It leads to less love and overall satisfaction in marriage.
Decreases in romance and sexual satisfaction aren’t the only consequences of out-of-wedlock sexual experiences. Research confirms that the highest levels of love and overall satisfaction belong to people who (1) are married, (2) had the fewest number of sexual partners, and (3) did not live together with their current or any previous partners.
6. It leads to poor decision-making and partner-selection.
Sex outside of marriage is directly related to poor relationship choices. Physical intimacy clouds good judgment. Several studies have shown that if you’re abstinent while dating, you’re likely to use better discretion in selecting a prospective partner. If you’re sexually active, however, you’re likely to overlook important aspects of a potential mate’s character, fidelity, and sexual history as long as you think that person is “sexy.”
7. Just because it’s great now doesn’t mean it will be great later.
Physical intimacy during dating isn’t representative of what it will be like during marriage, even if you marry the same person with whom you’ve been intimate. One researcher explains that this is because “the dating relationship has an agenda that marriage does not. … There is a lot of pressure to win over a partner, which causes a person to consciously or unconsciously please that partner in ways that may be very temporary.” He adds that the very reason a new relationship is so exciting is because of the tension of not having explored sexual intimacy with that person.
8. It creates unnecessary complications in the marriage bed.
There’s a learning curve with everything in life, including the physical aspects of a relationship. When both spouses enter into a marriage inexperienced in that respect, they learn together, and a very special bond is created as a result. But when both spouses have learned things from being with other people—or worse, when one has and the other hasn’t—it gives rise to memories of past experiences, regrets about the ways in which one’s spouse might not measure up, and feelings of jealousy from the spouse.
9. It hides existing relationship problems and creates additional ones.
In marriage, sex can’t be separated from the other aspects of the relationship—the good and the bad. In dating, however, sex very often precedes the development of a solid relationship. Because of this, it can mask problems that exist but haven’t yet been identified by one or both partners. It can create temporary feelings of euphoria that will ultimately shatter, once those problems begin to surface. And if physical attraction happened to be the primary basis of the relationship, then there won’t be much left to salvage when that falls apart.
10. It can make a relationship very unstable.
According to one psychological model, there are five dimensions to any relationship: Knowledge, trust, reliance, commitment, and touch. If the level of touch exceeds the level of anything else—if you don’t know everything you need to know about your partner; if you haven’t been together long enough to prove that this is someone you can trust; if you can’t or don’t know how to rely on him or her; and if there isn’t sufficient commitment (i.e., a marriage)—then the relationship becomes very unstable. It will leave you desiring all of the other aspects, but with no guarantee of ever receiving them.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
None of these observations, even if they were true, provide a clear reason for not fornicating. Some people may well seek instability, care not for romance and prefer short term excitement.
S
STT
Guest
I don’t think that intelligence can arises from chaos. What do you think? Studying particle physics in my opinion doesn’t help. How do you think that it is related to intelligence?
B
Bradski
Guest
A premise isn’t conditional. What you are doing is making statements that you suggest could be taken as being true before making your argument.
In other words: ‘Bradski, before we go on, can we both agree that…one needs to live in order to be human’ (a somewhat vacuus statement, but let’s move on).
You then have to make your argument on the assumption that we both agree with that statement. In other words, what you are saying is:
On the assumption that one needs to live in order to be human, is it morally acceptable to kill an innocent person IF…xyz.
You cannot use a premise, which needs to be agreed by all parties before you can continue, as the basis of your argument. You are actually asking me to accept your argument by accepting your premise and not offering an argument.
You need a conditional clause. The argument then becomes relative to that clause.
- Status