Moral Judgments

Man, this topic went to hell in a handbasket. I still maintain the assertion in the OP is valid, however.

I think that you jumped to Tal's side a bit prematurely. I agree with you far more than I do with Tal because I've seen your argument before, but in this context it really doesn't apply. Sex is sex, no doubt (man, woman, child, beast!). However, when one begins to draw lines, make laws, define what is taboo supposedly based on morals then the similarities fall apart because there are different agendas. Would you use ape interchangeably with human in regular conversation just because they both belong to the animal kingdom? I doubt it. So, I think it's just as silly to equate a homosexual sex act with a pedophilic sex act and claim equivalence because they are both sex acts.IMNSHO, this is the difference in the context of the OP as I see it:Child Point: The typical intent behind law making is usually to protect someone. In this case, we have laws that protect the less equivalent of the two partners participating in a sex act. Whether that be a child/mental retard/animal/subordinate. This law applies to heterosexual couplings, homosexual couplings, bestial couplings without, for the most part, bias one over the other. These, as far as I know, are not specifically addressed in the Bible. So, the present day laws that protect these groups of people are not based on a biblical morality system as much as an attempt to speak for/protect/stand up for someone who might not be able to.Synonymous(according to you and Tal)Homosexual Point: In contrast, laws, and I will stretch it to encompass opinions, that curtail homosexual sex acts (which for all intents and purposes are heterosexual acts unless you are orthodox christian/jew) are intended to specifically target same-sex couplings. I've never heard of or seen a guy arrested and charged for sodomizing a woman (not to say I've seen everything mind you). These laws get their basis and support from the christian bible in this country. This law is not an attempt to protect ANYONE. It is an attempt to stygmatize a certain group of people based on their preference.Tal, and by you jumping to his side, you as well are confusing morals with preferences. So, Tal's attempt to equate a sexual advance on a child (as I took the statement to indicate) with a homosexual act hiding behind "my morals" = "your morals" is in fact approaching the issue from two different directions yet claiming the same path....cookies and soccer belong where they are and seems nonsensical to me.....mmmm candy.You've probably been jumped on 50 times since I began replying, so for the repetitive crap just disregard it, or if I misunderstood the reason behind you linking pinkies with Tal then a link where you might have elaborated since would be great. Thanx.

There are alot of posts, so I didn't read all of them. However, I am curious how one separates personal preference from morals? It seems on this thread they are used interchangeably.

holmes responds to me...but still manages to forget to use the correct Reply button since that would make things easy for people to be able to trace the thread back which is the entire point of using the correct reply button: [quote]

quote:

---

Since you knew that those that spoke against him were concentrating on the issue of consent, one wonders why you were so disingenuous as to posit that something else was being considered.

​

I'm not sure what you are talking about. All the point of my criticism was that they cannot simply say their system has correct labels and his incorrect labels, in order to advance their argument.

---

Which, since you knew that those that spoke against him were concentrating on the issue of consent, one wonders why you were so disingenuous as to posit that they were "simply saying" their system was correct while his wasn't.Does the word "consent" mean nothing to you?

quote:

---

Do you not understand that I am discussing moral systems from a subjectivist vantage point?

---

Yes. And don't you think consent factors into that? You knew that's what they were talking about. Why were you being so disingenuous as to insinuate that they were talking about something else?

quote:

---

The problem is that he can simply say he is...

---

Well since he didn't say that, it would be monumentally stupid to go along that line of reason. Instead, he decided to say that same-sex relationships were the same as child molestation.And you're complaining that we responded to what he actually said? You're complaining that we responded to a clear distinction between the two?

quote:

---

I have not presented any logic which can be used to create a moral system within this thread.

---

By claiming that those who were arguing against Tal had not presented any reason, thus completely ignoring the issue of consent which was both implicitly and directly stated, and by claiming that sexual activity with those who are incapable of giving consent cannot be shown to cause any harm, you certainly presented a logic which can be used to create a moral system: With no way to distinguish between same-sex relationships and molestation, and with no idea that harm might come to the other person, there is nothing wrong with having sex with someone who can't consent.

quote:

---

It appears you blinked too soon and missed the point of my comment.

---

Which was that black is white. I got your point, holmes. I simply found it to be complete and utter tripe. You're right that morality and legality are not the same thing.But we weren't talking about legality. We were talking about morality. Predation is morally wrong. We're back to the issue of consent which you consistently refuse to acknowledge and engage.

quote:

---

Once again you seem to have blinked to soon. You cannot draw your conclusion from my statement.

---

Incorrect. Instead, you have failed to keep up. Does the word "consent" mean nothing to you? One wonders why you so insistently keep forgetting that we're talking about consent. You're absolutely right that the mere existence of power imbalances does not equal abuse. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about taking advantage of someone due to a power imbalance, which is one definition of abuse. For you to claim that you weren't talking about that means that you were simply engaging in logorrhea, having absolutely nothing of any importance to say on the subject.Try to keep up, holmes. We're talking about consent. We have been since the very beginning. You were told so directly and it has been obvious to all but the most obstinate observer.

quote:

---

I will only note that your "they" and "pretty much" and "harmed" are not exactly objective statements backed up by any evidence.

---

That's because I thought you had some sort of knowledge about the subject. Surely I'm not the only one who remembers the outcry from a few years ago when one of the mental health groups was publishing a study that said some children who had engaged in intergenerational sex might not be shattered individuals and might actually be normal, well-adjusted people when all was said and done.The response was completely inappropriate. People were saying that the report said that sex with children was perfectly fine which, of course, wasn't what the report said at all. Instead, it simply said that not every child who is sexually abused becomes a quivering mass of dysfunction and it does a disservice to the child and might actually make things worse to treat them that way. If you treat the child as if he's supposed to be having a nervous breakdown and he's not, he may start to wonder what's wrong with him which is only going to compound the problem. Instead, treatment (and there was never any claim that treatment wasn't going to be part of the response) needs to be tailored to the individual child. Some just need to talk it out. Some need intense therapy. Until you actually sit down with the kid and find out, it is inappropriate to assume anything.Am I the only one who remembers this? Why do you think that I phrased my statement the way I did? What on earth did you think I was getting at when I said, "notice, I simply said 'harmed' and not 'completely destroyed and incapable of living a fulfilled existence'"?It was a reference. My apologies for thinking you would catch it.

quote:

---

Other cultures have already been pointed out.

---

Yes...and does the word "consent" mean nothing to you? Are you physically incapable of remembering that word? Don't you think the concept of consent might have some connection to cultural norms? After all, in the cultures you mentioned, the activity is highly ritualized. Compare this to the typical adult-child sexual relationship that takes place here in the Western world.

quote:

---

That said, I am trying to tell you something

---

That's what I thought.I wonder how the Dutch feel about crime hotline tips from outside the country.And grow up, you big baby. I'll reply to any and every post I wish until the admins tell me not to. Nobody can force you to respond. Only you have control over whether or not you reply. If you don't think my statements have any merit, then what compels you to respond?While I'm calling the cops, perhaps I should suggest they bring a psychiatrist to help you with your unhealthy obsession with me.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Yes he did, and he explains it more fully on the Holmes & Tal: harm thread. That admin have reopened to allow the debate on.Currently we working through the generalisation of this comment. Shaz

Tal writes:

quote:

---

So can we use this to say that homosexuality is wrong?

---

No, because it is boneheadedly stupid to use the United States as the model of how HIV is represented in the various sexual orientations. In fact, the US is pretty much the last place on earth to find HIV primarily transmitted via male-male sex.Not even in Europe is it primarily male-male sex. It's primarily transmitted via heterosexual sex. Three-quarters of all HIV transmissions in the world were from heterosexual sex.You did read the Avert information completely and didn't just go quote mining, right?And, of course, you have completely overlooked the fact that homosexuality does not mean gay men. If you're going to use HIV transmission as the criterion for morality with regard to sexual activity, then lesbians must be god's favorite because it's practically unheard of to find HIV transmitted via female-female sex.Therefore, homosexuality is the best thing to have. It causes the least harm. Female homosexuals have practically no HIV transmission, male homosexuals have an incredibly small percentage, and heterosexuals have the lion's share.

quote:

---

Of those (and I can't verify this figure until I get back home) most (something like 95%) slept with a member of the opposite sex who used drugs.

---

Incorrect. You need to remember how the statistics are calculated. The categories are:Men who have sex with men (MSM)
Intravenous drug users (IDU)
Men who have sex with men *and* are intravenous drug users (MSM/IDU)
Hemophiliacs
Transfusion recipients
HeterosexualsYou will note that there is no "heterosexual *and* intravenous drug user" category the way there is for MSM/IDU. That's because if you use intravenous drugs, that is the assumed way in which you acquired HIV. All other risk factors except for MSM are ignored. Thus, the IDU number is artificially inflated while the heterosexual number is artificially deflated. The only group that allows for more than one vector is MSM/IDU. Every other category assumes you got it that way even though you could have received it through heterosexual sex.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes writes:

quote:

---

While one can point to Africa and say that numerically STDs hit heteros more, or that the larger percentage of STD cases are hetero, that does not mean that proportionally the homo population is less effected.

---

Acutally, it does. The rate of HIV transmission is dramatically lower among men who have sex with men than among the population of people who are gay. It is almost all done via heterosexual sex and intravenous drug users.While the US has a high rate of HIV among MSM, the US has a tiny fraction of those who have HIV. In fact, it's one of the last places on earth where HIV is primarily transmitted that way.Even Europe flipped five years ago.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Taqless writes:

quote:

---

I've never heard of or seen a guy arrested and charged for sodomizing a woman (not to say I've seen everything mind you).

---

Actually, that was one of the fallouts regarding the Bowers v. Hardwick decision and which led to the overturning of the Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy.You see, the reasoning (if one can call it that) behind the Bowers v. Hardwick case was that "The [U.S.] Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy," completely ignoring the fact that the Georgia law did not distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual non-penis-vagina sex, and thus, the state did have a compelling interest in regulating the sexual behaviour of the citizenry to the point of criminalizing activity carried out between consenting adults.In 1997, one Anthony San Juan Powell was being charged with rape and sodomy since he performed oral sex upon the woman. The jury found him innocent of rape but convicted him of sodomy and sentenced him to five years.This case was argued before the Georgia Supreme Court which found that the law conflicted the the Georgia Constitution's right to privacy.So there you have it: The reason why the Georgia sodomy statute was overturned was because a heterosexual man got caught in it. That the court couldn't come to this same conclusion when a homosexual man got caught in it only shows the cultural attitude prevalent in the country.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

For those who do not know, relative is defined relational to the culture as opposed to a standard independant of the culture. Tal, being a Christian, is asking for a definition of an absolute that transcends cultures. For him, it is his moral beliefs. The topic presupposes relativism, however. By NOT being a fundamentalist, one can respect other religions and cultures. How can one fight for their own relative beliefs in preference to any others? I would guess that voting a popular vote would be one way. Gay marriage, for example, may ultimately pass as a result of a popular vote by a majority of relativists who respect the "relative belief and right" that gay marriage represents. The fundamental absolutists will, of course, never agree to this. They will need to learn to use love as opposed to threats of Hellfire to swing more votes their way! Holmes, correct me if I am wrong, but you believe that human reasoning and logic is by definition agreeable to a majority and is able to trump any other proposed absolute, including fundamental interpretations of Gods laws? If so, you are proposing that morality is derived through human law and interpretation. Well...we could pray about it, seeing as we theoretically COULD agree on such an absolute Creator. Yes, Shaz.
Look at the Iraq situation. We took a stand against what they were yet cannot make them be as we are. Assuming that our way of life IS realistically better! Which brings up an interesting point. If the world took a vote, which absolute religious/moral system would win? Or would it be possible to construct an absolute non-religious value system?
(I think that Christianity would lose.) Are humans capable of defining the best absolute value for a collective society? Yet how can a popular vote equal an objective absolute? Is absolute defined as majority belief? For a Christian, Christ is as objective and real as that math theorem.
He Himself is not applicable in all situations for those who do not surrender their internal right to define and make decisions. For those who surrender to Him, he solves the problem. He Himself states that the road is narrow and that few find it. Obviously not a popular vote. Correct me if I'm wrong, Lam, but you are in essence asserting that all ancient fundamental beliefs have deep yet inferior roots. That collective, rational, and educated human agreement and reasoning will ultimately lead society out of its dark ages. Am I right? Is this similar to the Christian edict that "all have sinned", "none are righteous", yeat asserting that "my religion" is the only way?
This is the great paradox of humanity. Knowing what is right yet doing what one wants.
Knowing that an absolute exists yet unable to live within this absolute. (Unless one wishes to lose their life, will, and rationale" in order to find peace within the absolute.
The issue is trusting God. So you believe that an absolute is a necessity? A rule by definition is an absolute, is it not? Is this not why the Ten Commandments were asked for and needed by a people who have never lived by them since they were first given? And this puts us back on the topic premise, which was: Hangdawg brings up a point: What if the true believer of Allah is considered by Islamic fundamentalism to be a soldier? Do soldiers commit murder?
Or are we seeing a war of ideas and ideologies? Relative cultures clashing for dominance. Technically, however, a Christian does not see the State as their moral absolute. In the context of Jesus Christ, there is no edict to commit murder. To be continued.....This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-15-2005 00:53 AM

Hi Phatboy Personally, I don’t believe the Iraq situation pertains to morals other than by subjective reasoning.Let me explain that comment: The one thing I am picking up throughout this thread; is that morality tends to stem purely from ones subjective reasoning. Though it may be proposed that actions are regarded objectively, it still appears to me that judgment is done on a subjective basis, because we have no universal absolute of right or wrong. So therefore I propose that there can be no absolute judgment of morals (no matter whom is ones God), though there is judgment made against actions. Judging the Iraq situation as immoral is purely subjective, and it is likely that no two would ever agree 100% with all points in relation to the situation. (Note to all; I am not expressing personal opinion on this situation)Now given that, is it not feasible that if we removed all Government control, and legislative measures addressing actions, would we not have anarchy? It is my opinion; anarchy would be unpleasant for all of us. Subsequently we have in place mandates, for protection against ourselves and each other. If these mandates are contrary to our subjective reality, then the onus is on each of us as individuals to become our own activist, or our own country. Those of us with interest, also become advocates of those who are disadvantaged or unable to make a stand for themselves. So big brother is very much alive, and I believe it needs to be, but we can still be the watchdog.Whether I or anyone else believes an action is wrong, or a legislative mandate against an action is wrong, is subjective. The reality is a carte blanche wipe out of all measures of control/legislation; would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Consequently the onus is on us, to be instigators of change, instigators of reform, and instigators of education. In that there will always be differences of a subjective nature, and in reality everything we do comes down to choice, opportunity and (dare I say it) strength. So back to Iraq, it is only morally wrong on a subjective basis, and any action taken is subjective. Nonetheless if a minority is unable to advocate for itself, then others need to step in to fill the void, whether it be to send troops in or remove them. Wherever the balance of weight lies, so too does the balance of probability.Shaz

Yes I have been jumped on, and yes you missed why I "linked pinkies" with Tal. Don't worry though, at least you aren't being mean to me.My sole intent was to argue that from a logical standpoint they (schraf and berb) cannot assume that their moral criteria are true in order to judge tal's moral system (or the labels it generates).They may use "consent" or "ability to consent" or "harm" to judge and act right or wrong, and thus from their subjective definitions A would not be wrong and B would.Tal clearly said that A and B are both wrong, but he also clearly uses a different moral system which is "specific interpretation of the word of God".Logically someone cannot say well clearly A and B are disimilar due to the presence of X, which is what they use for their own formulations, and so my system is right and yours is wrong. Tal can equally say A and B are similar based on Y, which is what he uses for his formulations, and so my system is right and yours is wrong.In each case they would ba assuming that the criteria X or Y are the "correct" conditions for applying a moral label. But that is begging the question.My whole point was logical and not arguing for either side to be right morally. I also stayed away from the legal issues, which I stated are separate from moral ones.I don't want to get into the points you raised, though they are interesting, as they address moral and legal questions and not the point I was trying to make. Hope this helps.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

See where this society has gone? Whatta witchhunt. Call the cops Rrhain*. As it stands I am in communication with them, and will be for a bit (having to get that permit). I live under a glass bubble to them (actually almost literally as they have a camera positioned almost right on my door).I have already stated that my point was about logic, not morals. And that morals are separate from legal issues. I have also stated within EvC (and I will do so here again) that I believe the Netherlands (currently) has one of the best legal systems addressing sex as it pertains to minors.If the police come, or talk to me at my next interview, they will likely laugh with me at you and your american obsession with sex. If they take you a bit more seriously they will wonder at why you came to level that charge at a guy because of his defense of a logical (and later evidentiary) fact, when in fact he lives with his girlfriend and generally has group sex with older people and has 0 contact with children.I guess what you might do then is contact a good lawyer.I wonder if the admins here will take a hot tip on someone harassing posters?You know what is a cheaper shot than using strawmen, quotemining, and innuendo to try and cut off rational debate because you don't have a point? It is saying you are going to call the cops. That is a real threat as even if a person comes away clean legally, the stain of innuendo for having been a legal "suspect" can remain.*(edited in: I should add it could mess with my permit process regardless of legal outcome. I don't find that possible threat funny at all and so I guess I shouldn't be so glib. In any case, you have sunk to a new low and have proven you are not the "master or logic" some people think you are and you like to pretend to be. Just a thug.)This message has been edited by holmes, 01-15-2005 06:21 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

While this is true, for debate we might want to just use relativism and subjectivism as equals. They are practically the same once one begins to recognize subcultures are prevalent in any major culture. Relativisim sort of collapses into subjectivism. You aren't exactly right, but I can't blame you for viewing my position this way.I do believe logic and reason is agreeable to the majority. More than that though, it is necessary for communication and debate on any issue, including absolutes. This is simply a practical matter. There could logically be absolutes which exist whether we can communicate rationally about them or not.Thus communication and debate require logic and reason. One thing that many people may miss is that that does not mean that I rule out the possibility of faith or that it is illogical to have faith.People can have faith in a God and so faith in some absolute set of criteria. The point would be to recognize that while a faith can help an individual to obtain a set of absolutes, even that individual must recognize their is no practical way to determine between the absolutes they feel exist and someone else exists. Thus as a practical matter absolutism will necessarily collapse into a form of subjectivism.As far as morals and law, you have me completely wrong. I believe that morals and legal structures should be totally separate issues. Obviously they don't have to be, theocracies are possible, but I do not argue they should be merged.Morality is kind of a personal/informal behavioral guidance mechanism. And Law is a social/formal behavioral guidance mechanism. Thus right/wrong are separate from legal/criminal and determined almost entirely independently.My own moral system is pretty different than what most here seem to be using. I don't believe in using right and wrong as "real" moral terms. That does not mean then that I replace them with legal categories instead, or trust legal categories to substitute for moral categories.I do have a moral system and it is based on virtues. Its a bit complex and probably not useful to detail here. It is just worth mentioning that I am not arguing morals collapse into legal structures alone based on reason and logic. You are equivocating. A practical necessity to achieve a subjective end (in this case coherent communication or decision making) is not the same as a universal necessity for action, communication, or decision making... and certainly not "correct" action, etc etc. It is also not the same as a practical necessity of rules to work out conflicts between humans.Logic and reason are necessary for coherent communication, and analyzing relations of things to each other. They do not decide moral outcomes in and of themselves. This is to freely admit that logic and reason alone cannot determine morality. There must be some subjective preference or feeling to create a morality... and this could be a feeling of faith in an absolute criteria of good and bad!That does not change the fact that according to logical rules and practical reasons there really cannot be an "absolute morality", or one that is determinable for everyone.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

holmes responds to me and still hasn't managed to figure out how to use the correct reply button, thus making it extremely difficult to follow the thread back which is the entire reason for using the correct reply button:

quote:

---

See where this society has gone? Whatta witchhunt.

---

(*sigh*)Does the term "rhetoric" mean nothing to you? Think about why I might have said what I did. Might it have something to do with getting you to think about what you're saying and what the logical conclusion of your statements might be?

quote:

---

I have already stated that my point was about logic, not morals.

---

I know.And that's where the logic of your statements went. Did you stop to consider that maybe you should have rethought your statement?

quote:

---

That is a real threat as even if a person comes away clean legally, the stain of innuendo for having been a legal "suspect" can remain.

---

I know.And that's where the logic of your statements went. Perhaps, just perhaps, you should rethink what it is you are saying.I mean grow up. I have no idea where in the Netherlands you are and technically, the only reason I think you are in the Netherlands is because you said so. While your profile lists a .nl address, that doesn't mean anything. I am not in any position to do any sort of IP tracing of your posts. I have no idea where the hell you are. How on earth am I going to call the cops on you?How ironic that in a discussion regarding consent that brought up questions of maturity and capability of thinking abstractly, you completely failed to show any.Your obsession with me is pathetic, holmes. For someone who can't handle the thought of someone responding to him, you do an amazing job of holding up your end of the conversation. It takes two to tango, friend. While I will always respond to any post I desire, you are not forced to read any of them...or are you? What compulsion makes you respond to someone you don't want returning the favor?Your fate is in your hands. Choose wisely.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I have shown you empircal evidence to the contrary.Will you please support this statment from statistics about the US?

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us