Are Fundamentalists Inherently Immoral

Do cloud not exist because one can not define the boarders? We don't make absolute claims except within what we, individually, believe to be right and wrong. I say don't rape Suzy because I suspect that she and I are equivalent beings in that we are both sovereign, sentient and conscious. I value these properties in myself and, therefore, assume them valuable in Suzy. It's kind of like a mushroom: Better to assume it's poisonous; major benifit if your right; minor cost if you're wrong. If you can't get exactly 32 psi in your tires do you just rip em' off and roll around on the rims? We, mankind, don't have to get it exactly right to recognize the benefit of trying. Clearly we have that going for us. Did you know that some people, like, 3000 years ago wrote a book about Him that makes Him out to be a real douche-bag? You should set the record straight and let everyone know God is, like, cool, and wouldn't rape Suzy. Speak for yourself, John. So far it's fundamentalism which is depraved at its very core. In our little poll it's come back with abstentions and a "Not unless she's asking for it".

---

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.

On what planet do you live on?

In that case neither does good wine, manners, fashion or humour. I think it is wrong toa) cut the hands/feet off from thievesb) Whip a woman for wearing trousersc) Female genital circumcisiond) Hanging a black person because...well...for any reason.I could go on. Today, and historically people have honestly thought that these were morally right courses of action to take - and often they justified that they were acting on instruction from a deity (indeed - the god of Abraham).So yes - it is perfectly possible that something that modern western culture almost universally finds morally repugnant might be considered morally righteous by another. Yes, I think so. You don't think that people beat, poison and abuse children in our culture for entertainment? Or do you just think that everybody is doing it in Thailand?Anyway - we can agree that different cultures have different agreements on morality. Humans are accountable to other humans - it doesn't matter if those other humans think they are doing something morally right or not. Obviously, you highlight an issue which complicates life. If you've ever studied international affairs in an even casual manner you'll appreciate that this presents us with continuous difficulties.Should we interfere, when do we interfere, and how far should our interference go? It is a practical quandary as well as an ethical one.Or - we could believe that they will ultimately punished for their crimes by some Great Judge, meaning we don't need to worry about doing it ourselves. What do you think we should do? Forget that - you can't answer it since your opinion is irrelevant. What is your deity's solution to the moral problem of differing cultural norms? (kill them all? Kill them all except for their women and children who become your property? Turn the other cheek and let them carry on, giving them your complete love? Go to their cities and if you can't find ten people who are moral kill them all? Go to war with angels by your side and exterminate the entire culture and take their land as your own? Give them your children to be horrible to so that they won't be nasty to other people's children? What???) They've done something wrong according to my morality. I cannot speak for theirs, but the examples I gave above they certainly do think they are right.You may have noticed that we generally condemn the acts, but instead of essentially going to war with the culture (which will obviously lead to more suffering) we try other methods to persuade them to change their practices.Nobody said that being human was easy. What is the alternative? No. The problem you have is you assume that our meta-ethical position leads to our descriptive ethics just because that is the case with you.Not so. I prefer to use an evidence based moral system aimed towards approximately minimising suffering and maximising happiness. Essentially it is a form of Consequentialism. I appreciate it isn't perfect, but I don't fool myself into thinking that this life presents us with perfect solutions to our problems.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Coyote, you post here you have to make the statement. We all know which side you are on but there is some formality involved.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Sorry, I don't understand your meaning.Try again?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

And when you say that, you plunge me back into the moral abyss.Look, I think that I shouldn't rape Suzy. But according to you, I am not qualified to judge. So ... I'll toss a coin, right? Heads, I won't rape Suzy ...

Like everyone else in the world, I base my moral opinion on my own standards. Same as you.

No. It means absolute right and wrong don't exist. Yes, and I would still call it wrong. Yes. Yes. Then they are sick individuals. Of course they can. Actually, following the logic, they have. They just dont think so. I, and I am sure a whole host of others, would say they did. No. You misunderstood it, it seems.

---

I hunt for the truth

I can say for sure that I would not support this view: but that does not mean that my morality is written in letters of fire in the sky.Morality and ethics is about choice: you get given a cultural framework as you grow up and your individual nature selects from that framework.So I (as an example) growing up in a working class family in Britain was exposed to cultural values that I was rewarded for comforming to such as telling the truth, non violent resolution of disputes etc.My individual nature determins how strictly I adhear to this framework: I have lied and opted for violent soultions at times and because these action broke the cultural strictures I was inculcated with as a child I feel a bit bad.This is how I (and I submit everyone else) derives their ethic and morality from.Christians derive these traits from a book; this can overide their personal preference out of fear of losing their gods' love. But this is no different form any form of inculcation, is it?ABE: Rape is against my code of ethics and I would push for anyone convicted of it to suffer the full extent of the law even if other people felt it was ok.Edited by Larni, : Reread first post and saw that bit about taking a side on the rape question.Edited by Larni, : Spellibk

I am definitely against rape under any circumstances.

In general morality is subjective, but to decide whether rapists act immorally, even from the viewpoint of their own culture, is very easy if you consider that there is no culture in which children willingly offer themselves for abuse. There is no doubt in my mind that the victims feel that what the men do to them is horrendously immoral. It would be a bit naive to suppose that if some members of a cultural group espouse certain moral values - or rather, fail to do so - that this then goes for the whole group.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

But you have got this completely ass-backwards."Following the logic behind subjective morality", I find that if I think that that's wrong, then that's wrong.Meanwhile, following your logic, it seems that if I think that that's wrong I might be wrong about whether it's wrong, and no mere fallible human, such as myself, can decide that that's wrong. So I might as well toss a coin to find out whether I should condemn such practices or join in.---By the way, I am sure that you'll be relieved to learn that the story we're discussing is a lie. Horrible things do happen, but fortunately this isn't one of them. Obviously that never happened.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

So if morality is decided subjectively and according to one's social surroundings, than that means right and wrong do not exist.

---

Your Message 7 shows subjective morality. You essential said it is wrong now, but it was justified at the time of Moses. The view changed with the social surroundings.In Deuteronomy we find laws concerning rape in the community. Very different from ours in the US today. History of Sexual ViolenceThis law in Deuteronomy supports this idea. Today rape in time of war is considered a war crime. In ancient cultures stealing women was acceptable. It may have been better than the alternative, but we can still look back and say it was wrong and still is wrong.It is contradictory to look back and say God was justified in commanding vengence.You still haven't shown me what the Midianites did wrong. Message 11

Can you or can you not state that rape is wrong under all circumstances?If you can't, I will have to list your alias under decline to state along with John 10:10 and Mike the Wiz when compiling the stats.If I missed your formal statement in a previous post, please accept my apologies.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Equivocating will force me to recatergorize your stance.