|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are Fundamentalists Inherently Immoral | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Tell me this. Is it wrong for these men to be doing this. Is this not evil? In our culture this is repulsive, but in their culture it is a way of entertainment. In their culture? I kind of doubt that - I'll bet that 98+% of Thais find this as repulsive as I do. And the same thing has been going on in Houston recently, anyway. Does that make child rape "a way of entertainment" here in Texas, too?
Five men and women accused of forcing girls as young as 16 into a life of prostitution were arrested in Houston, federal and local authorities said Tuesday. Children 16 and 17 became indentured sex slaves to people who beat them, held them at gunpoint and threatened to harm their families, said Houston U.S. Attorney Tim Johnson. He said one defendant tried to sell a minor to another pimp. "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Can you provide a source for this story? There are evil people everywhere, I venture to guess the vast majority of Thais find this story repulsive too.
I just find it convenient that christians tell a story of how evil a culture is when they are trying to proselytize to that culture. The context of the story is racism at its core. You are attributing the vile and disgusting acts of a few individuals to a whole people. Do you truly believe this is a classic ever day occurrence in every city and town in Thailand? Do you think nothing like this ever happens in "christian" nations? That Sir, is offensive.
In our culture this is repulsive, but in their culture it is a way of entertainment. How the hell do you get that out of the story? That is disgusting and offfensive that you would even suggest that it is a cultural norm. Do you know who the biggest abusers for these young boys and girls are? Christians from the west. Again, can you supply an reputable source for the story? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
In Message 140, Peg said:
I believe that most societies, including the west, had no laws against marital rape because it was quite legal to do. Its only been in more recent years that marital rape has been considered a illegal. In the Bahamas they are currently putting a bill through that would outlaw marital rape. But many citizens have something to say about that:
quote: Yup - a fine example of Biblical morality right there. You can do what you like to a woman if she is foolish enough to say "I do.". But nobody really really thinks like that do they?
quote: Oh - well that's just men being misogynistic. Women would never consider being forced to have sex against their will as a good thing, right? I mean, even religious women would object - if given the opportunity to speak out?
quote: Of course, no woman would seriously permit a man to have sex with her if she had the flu and just wanted to get some bed rest, I mean - there are limits, right?
quote: Source. Yup some people are perfectly happy to sign control over their sex life over to another person unconditionally (and others are perfectly happy to exploit that) in the name of Biblical morality. It is clearly a perfect divine moral system that dictates that it is perfectly moral to do something to somebody that they don't want done to them. It is the height of glorious and righteous Mercy that this extends at least all the way to penetrative sexual acts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
How can there be absolute morality if every person establishes their own definition of morality based on their own unique opinons and upbringing? That is a good question. You are asking it rhetorically but it need not be rhetorical. A better way to phrase it might be, "How is absolute morality defined when morality seems to be derived on an individual basis?"
This question is based on the presupposition that morality is in fact absolute; otherwise you would have no valid arguement against the Bible. To presume that an absolute morality must come from revelation is a fallacy that many religious people make. Who is anyone to say that such a morality comes from their particular ancient book? If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
I don't know what you would describe me today. I have had a variety of hats on in my posting history here. Perhaps 'Christian-Heritage Pseudo-Religious Anti-Fundamentalist Pro-Science' ?
At any rate, I absolutly believe that rape is fundamentally wrong in all circumstances. Furthermore, I absolutly believe that any other opinion is immoral. If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Holyfire23 Inactive Member |
@ anglgard: Rape is wrong.
Here is where I see a problem with subjective morality. If morality is defined by one's society, then morality can only be judged within that particular society. For the record, I agree with all of you that rape is wrong. But if one holds to the belief that morality is subjective to one's society, they cannot judge what is moral within a different society. If rape is to be wrong under all circumstances absolute moral presuppostions must be made. Otherwise, rape would only be wrong according to our standards. This poses a question, what makes our standards better than another societies standards? Again I will say this. I think rape is wrong under any circumstances. Anyone who makes this statement and calls morality subjective is simply living above the standards of his own philosophy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
This poses a question, what makes our standards better than another societies standards? This poses a question, what makes the christian god more just or right than any other deity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3268 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
But if one holds to the belief that morality is subjective to one's society, they cannot judge what is moral within a different society. I can judge another society to my heart's content. I may not be able to do anything to change their mind, but I can judge it all I want, and I can try to change their mind by appealing to the things that are similar among all human beings (or at least the vast majority of them), namely their empathy and rationality.
Anyone who makes this statement and calls morality subjective is simply living above the standards of his own philosophy. No they're not. I think morality is subjective. Using that subjectivity, I have created a moral/ethical code by which I try to live. Under the code I ascribe to, rape is wrong, therfore, ipso facto, thus, when I see rape, I consider it wrong. QED.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Holyfire23 Inactive Member |
"This poses a question, what makes the christian god more just or right than any other deity?"
That isn't answering my question. What makes our society's definition of morality more true or mor accurate than that of the Nazi society? Edited by Holyfire23, : Forgot to quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
If morality is defined by one's society, then morality can only be judged within that particular society. And that makes you uncomfortable? Actually morality can be judged within and without that particular society. Watch... Whipping a woman for wearing trousers is morally wrong. You see how I judged another society? How did I do that? You might argue that there are multiple societies. I am Mancunian.I am English. I am British. I am European. I am human. I belong to more social groups that, obviously. However, if someone who belongs to any of those social groups commits an act I can freely comment on my opinion as to whether I think that doing what they are doing is conducive to the kind of society I want to be a part of and that I think is ideal. I can also say 'Hmm, bit of a grey area there'. I might be wrong. Maybe whipping women for their clothing choices is a great way to create the perfect society that I'd really want to be a part of. So I ask - why do you whip the women? The answer is "Because somebody centuries ago thought that someone centuries before him thought that some invisible being believed it was the right thing to do" and I know that there is no real justification for whipping women for their trouser wearing antics.
If rape is to be wrong under all circumstances absolute moral presuppostions must be made. Well, yes. But a consequentialist could easily say that under any realistically likely circumstances rape is wrong - even if we might imagine an unrealistic situation when rape is the moral imperative (for example - if raping a single woman could have prevented the holocaust). The odd thing is that this is the exact argument religious people could be using, that the rape and genocide in the Bible served some greater, but undetectable good. But to do that they have to abandon moral absolutism which they seem to be married to. For ease of conversation - it can be simplified to 'rape is always wrong in the real world' or 'rape is always wrong' (since the last part is redundant)
This poses a question, what makes our standards better than another societies standards? It depends on our goals doesn't it? If our goals are to make a happier society then we can start to rule out those standards that empirically cause everybody to be unhappy, if our goal is to make a society productive again we can set benchmarks against which to judge. The question is - which goal is the one to drive towards? Who knows? How about we try reasoning it out, experimenting with ideas, slowly teasing out what humanity as a whole wants while attempting to convince others to shift their ideas. Or we could just pick one standard and dogmatically defend it even if it seems it could lead to potentially terrible consequences. I prefer the former, I have no idea why you'd want to prefer the latter. So which is more moral? To pick one morality and stick to it regardless of the consequences, or to confer with other humans and try and figure out a way that works for the most people? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Mine was more of a rhetorical question. I am beginning to think you are of the mindset that you get to decide what is right or wrong. Mankind is a social creature. We have learned to adapt with groups of people, developed altruism so that we can hone in on making that group function better as a unit. People like Hitler, IMO, are an anomoly. They rise to power and assert their beliefs on the group they have come in power to rule over.
Have there been lots of people like that throughout history? Sure. Does anyone ever say they are morally just in their actions? Not without having the fear of some sort of repurcussion.
What makes our society's definition of morality more true or mor accurate than that of the Nazi society? We have learned from past mistakes. Our society is what it is because it works for us, as a society. I sense you feel as though you need someone to tell you what is moral?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3268 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
example - if raping a single woman could have prevented the holocaust Interestingly, I can conceive of such a scenario. If some time traveller went back in time and raped Hitler's mother before she gave birth to Adolf, and assured that she was pregnant a month or so before she would have conceived Adolf, then you could say that raping her prevented the holocaust. However, I would still say raping her is wrong, because 1) rape is wrong and 2) despite being his mother, she is not responsible for the Holocaust and capital punishment of the sort rape would have to be is not justified.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Don't confused judging ( to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises) and judgment (a formal decision given by a court or a divine sentence or decision). I can form and give an opinion on any society I want. Only those with authority over the society can make judgments concerning laws and individual actions. quote:Exactly! What makes the Hebrew standards better than the Midian standards? What makes Jewish standards better than Christian standards? What makes my standards better than my neighbors? There are many levels of standards. National, local, religious, individual. Even within a society an individual may not agree with the national viewpoint.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Interestingly, I can conceive of such a scenario. If some time traveller went back in time Oh yeah - or if super powerful aliens/god demanded that it be done or all residents of India will be killed. Not realistic scenarios though, eh?
However, I would still say raping her is wrong, because 1) rape is wrong and 2) despite being his mother, she is not responsible for the Holocaust and capital punishment of the sort rape would have to be is not justified. So you'd condemn thousands of Jewish women (and probably not a few men), not to mention non-Jewish residents of conquered lands to be raped, tortured and millions to be murdered? It's not like they were responsible for the Holocaust either. Sure it's distasteful - I'd have difficulty doing it. I might not be able to do it. But I'd still consider it a moral imperative if I knew that doing it would remove the Holocaust. Unless we think that Hitler's actions made for a more secure future so that the violent deaths of millions enabled the peaceful existence of billions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3268 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
So you'd condemn thousands of Jewish women (and probably not a few men), not to mention non-Jewish residents of conquered lands to be raped, tortured and millions to be murdered? It's not like they were responsible for the Holocaust either. Sure it's distasteful - I'd have difficulty doing it. I might not be able to do it. But I'd still consider it a moral imperative if I knew that doing it would remove the Holocaust. Unless we think that Hitler's actions made for a more secure future so that the violent deaths of millions enabled the peaceful existence of billions. I would be hard pressed to believe it is possible to go back in time to rape Hitler's mom with any 100% certainty that she could not abort (either intentionally or not) or somehow still give birth to Adolf, while at the same time not having any other way to reach the same result. If my time machine works to a date shortly before Adolf's mother conceived him, but won't work to go to a time 5 years more recent and do something to Hitler himself, then perhaps there would be an argument there. But in general, could I do something to an innocent person in order to save other innocent people? It's akin to the train question, if a train is heading toward a chasm with 100s of people on board, but in front of you is a switch that will put the train on another track that doesn't go over a cliff, and on the new track is a kid who is stuck and can't get away, would you pull the switch? It comes down to active participation and passive participation. Actively raping Hitler's mom is far different from passively letting the Holocaust happen through someone else's actions. To be perfectly honest, I don't know what I would do in the situation and I'm not sure what answer I would want my ethics to return. {AbE} The actual moral theory I subscribe to would say, yes go ahead and rape his mother if you're sure it will result in saving 100,000s of people, but I'm still not sure if I could do it.{/AbE} Edited by Perdition, : AbE above.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024