Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law?
mick
Member (Idle past 4987 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 16 of 206 (261380)
11-19-2005 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by crashfrog
11-19-2005 7:59 PM


Re: Look for the embarassing admission down at the end
Yes, I see where you're coming from. (I actually agree with you).
In the UK, one can join the army and murder people for a living, shoot sand-niggers in the head for a living, at the age of 16, and indeed it's encouraged through organizations such as the Army Cadets, who recruit young boys from the age of 13 and 14. But you can't see an erect penis on TV no matter how old you are.
Bullshit if you ask me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2005 7:59 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 17 of 206 (261381)
11-19-2005 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by randman
11-19-2005 8:00 PM


Loaded Terms
randman writes:
you say you have trouble seeing how science can lead to sexual amorality. Holmes, if I remember, argued based on science, and you admit we are mostly imposing religion on people.
So, in fact, isn't reasonable to claim that science leads to amorality from your perspective at least. I think there are those that argue science indicates monogamous marriage is best for children, people, etc....so maybe science does not.
Morality, amorality, and immorality are terms that make sense only within a specific moral system or model: what is immoral in one system may be trivially amoral in another; a moral obligation in one model is an immoral imposition in another.
The notion of moral relativism is itself prima facie absurd because it suggests it could be otherwise: all moral systems are relative in that they cohere only for those within them. That is why so many of the responses above hinge determinations of sexual morality on the question of consent: if two competent persons act together consensually within a mutually agreed upon moral contract, their actions are moral within that contract. It is as fruitless to judge those actions from within another system as it is to ask the speed of blue. It will not compute.
We disdain the man who "cheats" on his wife because he has promised not to--they entered into a private moral universe with their marriage vows (if they didn't, and have an open marriage, then "cheats" does not apply). We nearly universally disdain that man because he failed to honor his vow in the most intimate realm; religions proscribe this behavior because a primary function of religion is to reinforce the moral covenants we make together.
One moral bedrock is the familiar, "First, do no harm"--a charge all, not just physicians, might consider. Cited often as evidence of the earliest development of a "moral sense" in children is their response to broken things: toddlers will cry when symmetrical form is broken. To break, to damage, to hurt: these are moral absolutes; what is breaking, what is damaging, what hurts: these are morally relative because they are coherent notions only within a closed system, only between mutual subscribers.
In short, disdain for the philanderer does not impose religious beliefs; he may well not give a fig for our disdain, and even if he does, disdain is an internal state, not an action. To abduct that man into a moral system he has not subscribed to, and then to pursue punitive measures, is an absolutely immoral act. Science can play a part by helping to determine what promotes and what inhibits robust development,what maintains healthful function, etc., but even the question of whether each determination belongs to the morally absolute or the morally relative is outside of science's bounds. Was the masochist tragically hastened to an early grave by the sadist? Or did the masochist trade-off a longer life for a shorter one of fiery intensity?
These are human affairs. Where morality meets muscle, Science and God are largely and equally irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 11-19-2005 8:00 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2005 11:53 AM Omnivorous has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 206 (261403)
11-19-2005 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by randman
11-19-2005 8:02 PM


Re: religion vs science
Hello, randman.
No, I still don't quite get your idea. Well, I think I might, but I am uncertain enough that I don't want to risk putting words into your mouth. But let's try this: let me explain my position on the relationship between science and ethics, and let's see if this touches on your points. If so, then we can continue from there; otherwise, you can try to clarify your position again.
Science does not, and cannot, determine what morality is or should be. Science is completely amoral -- it is, at best, a description of the real world based as much as possible on facts (and the logical inferences to which those facts lead). These facts, though, never have anything to do directly with morality.
On the other hand, the science can (and should) inform ethics. Let me explain what I mean by this through an example. Let us suppose that my ethics are based on the idea that the general happiness of the great majority of people should be increased as much as possible, and that unhappiness and misery should be decreased -- an ethical theory based on utilitarianism. Let's not worry too much here about what this means in detail, how we determine happiness and unhappiness, or the obvious dilemmas that can (and do) arise. Let's just take this as a given for the sake of illustration.
Now let's take one of your examples: pedophilia. Let us suppose that a credible program of scientific research has shown that children (or at least a large enough portion of children) are invariably harmed through sexual encounters with adults. Then, according to the ethical stance I have adopted, science is telling me that I should be against sex with children. However, it is not science that is determining my ethical stand; my ethical stand is determined by my concern for the happiness and well being for children, and science is merely helping me decide how best to provide for the well being of children.
On the other hand, suppose that a credible program of scientific research has shown that children are not harmed by sexual contact with adults. That does not mean that I am going to automatically condone sex with children. There are still the feelings of the parents, the feelings of the children (even if they are not harmed); moreover, my ethics may not be purely utilitarian-based -- there may be other factors that are influencial, perhaps even notions of traditional morality. All science would have shown, in this case, is that sex with children does not harm children -- it does not determine how I am going to act, nor does it determine how I am going to feel about the idea (although I would, of course, be relieved that the "victims" of pedophilia are not going to irreparably harmed by the experience).
Of course, if it turned out that my feelings against pedophilia were based largely on the fear that children were harmed by the experience, then finding out that there would be no harm would force me to rethink my position. But again, it is not science determining what I feel to be moral or immoral -- that is determined by my chosen utilitarian standards. All science has done in this case is to show me that the reasoning by which I condemned pedophilia is based on incorrect facts.
I don't know if this helps. Does this touch on the points you were trying to make?

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by randman, posted 11-19-2005 8:02 PM randman has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 19 of 206 (261404)
11-19-2005 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by randman
11-19-2005 8:00 PM


Re: Holmes argues from science, right?
So, in fact, isn't reasonable to claim that science leads to amorality from your perspective at least.
Leads to? No, science only describes sexual "amorality." People have been sexually amoral for as long as there's been sex.
Science no more leads people to sexual amorality than religion does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 11-19-2005 8:00 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by berberry, posted 11-20-2005 8:36 AM crashfrog has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 206 (261499)
11-20-2005 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by crashfrog
11-19-2005 10:37 PM


Science doesn't make moral judgements
I agree with part of your sentiment, crash, but I'd put it a little differently. Science simply makes no moral judgements. Rand thinks that science is out to destroy everyone's morality, which demonstrates admirably the conundrum science poses for religious fundamentalists. They see everything in terms of religion and religious morality. It is simply not possible for them to look at science dispassionately, the way a scientist or even a moderate Christian would. They don't understand why anyone would try to study something without bringing the bible to bear on it. To them, all knowledge comes from God and the bible, and anything that aims to derive knowledge from a source other than God or the bible is necessarily an evil thing that aims to destroy everyone's morals.
Just stop and think about what he said:
...isn't it reasonable to claim that science leads to amorality...
Randman, like all fundementalists, has no clue about what science is. He can't have a clue about it. His whole world revolves around the supernatural. His whole reason for existing is to glorify a supernatural entity. There's no way to get him to even consider a natural explanation for anything. He doesn't know how to do it, and I've come to realize that it can never be explained to an adult fundie. If rand is ever to truly understand anything about the natural world, he will have to reach that understanding on his own. If it ever does happen, it will probably be quite by accident.
All of that said, I must disagree with you here:
quote:
Science no more leads people to sexual amorality than religion does.
That requires a major rephrasing. It should read:
quote:
Science has never led anyone to sexual amorality, but religion often does.
EDITED to change subtitle.
This message has been edited by berberry, 11-20-2005 07:38 AM

"We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job. That's what I'm telling you."-George W. Bush, Gulfport, Miss.,
Sept. 20, 2005.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2005 10:37 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2005 11:17 AM berberry has replied
 Message 27 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 6:01 PM berberry has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 21 of 206 (261539)
11-20-2005 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by berberry
11-20-2005 8:36 AM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
Science simply makes no moral judgements. Rand thinks that science is out to destroy everyone's morality, which demonstrates admirably the conundrum science poses for religious fundamentalists.
I'm concerned that, to a fair extent, we're all conflating sexual amorality with sexual immorality; Rand's not asking if science turns normal people into sexual offenders and deviants and rapists (immorality) - he's asking if science leads to a culture of non-judgementality about sexual acts.
Well, no, it doesn't. Certainly a scientific approach to sexuality is non-judgemental, but science should be non-judgemental about all human behavior. The purpose of science is not to recommend policy but to describe reality, and the reality is that the scope of human sexual behavior is significantly wider, and always has been, than religions have preferred. There have always been people who did not make judgements about sex, or judged sexual activities in a different way than their society. Cassanova. Lothario. Lilith. Cultural, even mythical, figures who were both revered and despised for refusing to suborn their sexual desires to the limited scope mandated by their cultures.
Does science produce more of these figures? I don't see it that way. But certainly the advancing knowledge about human sexual behavior, starting perhaps with the work of Alfred Kinsey, has provided a sense of legitimacy to people who felt illegitimized by their sexual preferences and practices. But I don't see that as a reduction in morality, towards amorality - I see it as an expansion of morality.
quote:
Science has never led anyone to sexual amorality, but religion often does.
I guess I don't follow. Can you explain a bit more why you feel this is the case?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by berberry, posted 11-20-2005 8:36 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by berberry, posted 11-20-2005 12:16 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 30 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 6:11 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 22 of 206 (261548)
11-20-2005 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
11-19-2005 6:25 PM


enter holmes...
How long could I possibly stay away from this topic?
I believe sexual taboos, such as multiple wives, homosexuality, multiple partners, even sex with minors, etc,...(but not rape), are more the result of moral judgments, and that a large part of morality is founded in religious beliefs though that's not the only source.
Yes, all taboos are moral judgements. I suppose you shouldn't use the term "religion" in this kind of discussion, just because morals can come from everywhere even if many use their religion to justify (and form) their moral outlook.
I'm not trying to pull religion out of this, just trying to make the discussion more accurate. After all Xian fundies and antiporn feminists share an almost identical moral outlook on sex and porn, though the latter often claims to have no belief in Xianity. Thus its easier to discuss morals.
Many laws on such subjects as you detail are indeed impositions of morality. But not all.
In addition to moral "harm", some activities carry real life issues which someone would want protection from. For example, a person who discovers their spouse has been unfaithful, when fidelity was a part of their pact, is not exactly imposing a moral judgement to prosecute based on breach of contract.
I don't think there is a very good scientific explanation why a man should remain monogamous, or why willing people, should not engage in sex.
Science never ever determines should or ought. If this is what you think people can or do use to generate behaviors you are mistaken. Anyone that claims to do the same are also mistaken.
All science can do is explain what a situation is. Individuals must apply their rule system upon that situation to generate a moral conclusion, or in some way determine a course of action.
For example a panel of scientists can determine that an individual is packed to the gills with communicable diseases (STDs and other) and you have no chance of survival if you decide to have sex with that person. It still remains up to you to do the moral calculus on whether that is a "right" choice.
If so, does science inherently lead to amorality in terms of sexual behaviour that is non-violent?
No. Science can lead to a loosening of morally restricted activities as those who base their judgement of "wrong" on "harm", discover through science that almost all sexual behaviors cause no harm at all. That is different than leading to amorality, as this actually just redefines actions as moral in a very moral driven system.
If you do not base your moral judgements on "harm", or some other objectively measurable criteria, science won't effect anything at all.
And of course just because one realizes something may not be harmful, and so believe that it is not "wrong", that doesn't mean they will end up liking it.
Of course laws should not be constructed based on what people "dislike". That is enforcing a morality, which is the same as enforcing a religion, and so unConstitutional.
for example, when we prosecute a 30 year old teacher for having sex with teen-age boys, are we imposing our religion on them? How about if a 30 year old man sleeps with a 15 year old girl?
These two situations have additional issues... parents. Consent of the kid is a smokescreen by some. It is really consent of the parents that are the important issue. As long as we believe parents have rights to try to impose moral systems upon their kids, there can certainly be a legitimate reason to view someone violating that family's "system" as something other than "harmless" activity.
This does not exactly argue for blank slate laws against such activity (as we have now), but it does support laws along this line giving parents the ability to protect their own families, and kids protecting themselves.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 11-19-2005 6:25 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 6:21 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 102 by riVeRraT, posted 11-23-2005 8:50 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 23 of 206 (261550)
11-20-2005 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Omnivorous
11-19-2005 9:09 PM


Re: Loaded Terms
Nice post, however...
The notion of moral relativism is itself prima facie absurd because it suggests it could be otherwise: all moral systems are relative in that they cohere only for those within them.
This is not quite true. Moral Absolutism is surely possible. Of course the absolutist has their work cut out for them showing how there are absolutes!
I think its better to say that in a practical sense all moral systems are relative.
In short, disdain for the philanderer does not impose religious beliefs; he may well not give a fig for our disdain, and even if he does, disdain is an internal state, not an action. To abduct that man into a moral system he has not subscribed to, and then to pursue punitive measures, is an absolutely immoral act.
As much as I loved your wording in this whole paragraph... poetry... I have to disagree. Disdain for the philanderer is to impose one's own moral system on them. You are correct that the philanderer will reject that attempted imposition, but clearly someone will be trying to get the philanderer to accept the intrusion (or "blanket") of that foreign system.
That last sentence is gorgeous and I am going to have to think about it for a while.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Omnivorous, posted 11-19-2005 9:09 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Omnivorous, posted 11-20-2005 12:45 PM Silent H has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 206 (261557)
11-20-2005 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
11-20-2005 11:17 AM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
crash asks me:
quote:
I guess I don't follow. Can you explain a bit more why you feel this is the case?
Because science is value-neutral. It leads people neither to nor from morality. It has nothing to do with morality.
Religion, however, often leads people to favor cuts in social programs that benefit poor people, to favor unneccessary wars that kill people, to oppose equal treatment under the law for minority groups, to force little girls who've been raped by their fathers to get permission from their rapist/father before getting an abortion etc., etc., etc. In other words, religion often leads people into an amoral lifestyle.
And if that's not enough sexual amorality for you, look at how certain faiths seem to lead many of their own leaders to rape children.

"We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job. That's what I'm telling you."-George W. Bush, Gulfport, Miss.,
Sept. 20, 2005.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2005 11:17 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 25 of 206 (261570)
11-20-2005 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Silent H
11-20-2005 11:53 AM


Re: Loaded Terms
Hi, Holmes:
Thanks for both the compliments and the comments.
A better choice of words for me would would have been to say that "the charge of moral relativism" is absurd because it implies an insupportable absolute.
I think its better to say that in a practical sense all moral systems are relative.
Yes: I was trying to portray accusations of moral relativism as disingenuous in their begging of the question--it's probably better to just cut to the chase.
I have to disagree. Disdain for the philanderer is to impose one's own moral system on them. You are correct that the philanderer will reject that attempted imposition, but clearly someone will be trying to get the philanderer to accept the intrusion (or "blanket") of that foreign system.
I was attempting here to move toward an action-based assessment of moral systems. So I will stand by my assertion that disdain "does not impose religious beliefs"--with the understanding that such disdain frequently does carry real-world costs for the disdained.
For me, the punitive action is the bright line, the thin dimension where a working moral absolute (or given, a la Euclidean premises without which we cannot proceed) may be defined. As long as "disdain is an internal state, not an action" a judgement properly remains within its own relative moral sphere; when a disdainer seeks to impose either the disdaining system or punitive costs upon the disdained, the bright line is crossed.
Having said all that, I am re-reading my message for the first time this a.m., and I, too, have a few questions to put to myself. Language intoxicates, and it always pays to consider later whether an argument soared on gusts of rhetoric or on wings of reason.
Typically, I revisit a draft to find it is both.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2005 11:53 AM Silent H has not replied

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5162 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 26 of 206 (261589)
11-20-2005 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by crashfrog
11-19-2005 7:59 PM


Re: Look for the embarassing admission down at the end
The age of consent question, although it is a line you should not cross, is a definite arbitrary line drawn in the sand by society. It doesn’t matter if this is done on scientific, religious or sociological grounds.
The truth is that most humans become sexually mature (in the sense they can reproduce) quite early on 11-13 ish and the human race is the only critter, on the whole, that doesn’t start mating the instant after puberty(as far as I know). So when the legal line is drawn several years beyond the age of puberty, it isn’t a biological restraint but has to be moral, ethical, political or medical. Science may throw in studies in regard to the mental health of young people who have been hunted by older predatory adults and thus help set the bar, but mainly the age of consent comes mainly from society itself and the changing mind set. We think, on the whole, that our children are simply not ready for all that at the age of puberty. I agree. Although, this is not a barrier for a partnership to emerge that will endure for a life time. I know a couple where one was 15 and the other was the art teacher and now the 15 yo is in their late 30s and they are still together and happily married. Having said that I also know another art teacher who was jailed for extra curricular activities with a 15 year old. One teacher was male the other female, see if you can guess which was which . Guessing right should give you a big insight into the way our attitudes work in this area.
Rape is another thing altogether and is equally repugnant no matter the age of the victim (which is worse the rape of a 14 yo, the rape of a 35yo, or the rape of a 78yo?). Among the main causes are mental problems: the person lacks the capacity to restrain their urges. Anger/hatred: the offender uses the rape as an attack/punishment either against the individual, a relative/friend or society. Either way this is a problem and needs to be dealt with education, treatment and in the latter case punishment.
While on purely biological grounds you could at least explain underage sex between sexually mature willing partners (ie post puberty), the pheromones, the pheromones . the great tabbo however is sex with non sexually active partners ( ie below the age of puberty.) This no matter how you dress, it is clear indication that something has gone badly wrong. Though I have not heard many cases where this is done out of spite to the victim but mis-placed desire. And I believe treatment is the key here over punishment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2005 7:59 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 6:03 PM ohnhai has not replied
 Message 39 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 5:33 AM ohnhai has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 27 of 206 (261602)
11-20-2005 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by berberry
11-20-2005 8:36 AM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
Rand thinks that science is out to destroy everyone's morality, which demonstrates admirably the conundrum science poses for religious fundamentalists.
That's not what I think. The purpose of this thread, for me, was to raise an interesting issue, namely that many believe sexual mores are just moral impositions and cite scientific studies to back that up. I think Holmes goes as far as to claim certain situations now classified as pedophilia are shown not to be harmful scientifically. I am not sure if I agree with that, but there was a recent story I noticed where a woman had married her first love when she was 30. He was a 20 year old teacher, and she 15, and she thought it was just fine.
Now, I don't want my girls dating some older guys or teachers, but that's getting off-topic. The point is the science may not indicate that the sexual mores of the evos here are scientifically based stances.
That's what I wanted to get at. That whereas you guys slam religious people for wanting their values reflected in the law instead of just pure reason and science from your perpective.
Most of you here do the exact same thing you claim religious people do. You want your values reflected in the law, and want to impose your morals and values independent of real science.
Not all I might add. Holmes seems to be a little more ideological pure in this regard, but perhaps it is right after all to believe morals exist, period, and that we should have a sense of sexual morality, and if that's the case, then why bash religious people for wanting to impose their religion for wanting porn limited, or gay marriage or whatever.
In other words, let's look in the mirror. Most here would be pretty upset if their 14 year old was having sex with a 50 year old neighbor, and I think it's wrong too. But at least I can admit this is a values and morals judgement.
I don't see the anti-religionist side being willing to admit they are doing the same thing, minus a few that actually disagree and see no problem with such things as teens having sex with older people.
It's not the nicest subject to talk about, but on the other hand, maybe rethinking what we are doing is a good thing. If you want to normalize homosexual relations, fine, but don't pretend you are doing anything different than the religious right when you don't want 13 year olds having sex with adults, or multiple wives, or whatever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by berberry, posted 11-20-2005 8:36 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Chiroptera, posted 11-20-2005 6:04 PM randman has replied
 Message 41 by berberry, posted 11-21-2005 9:32 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 28 of 206 (261603)
11-20-2005 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by ohnhai
11-20-2005 5:06 PM


Re: Look for the embarassing admission down at the end
I know a couple where one was 15 and the other was the art teacher and now the 15 yo is in their late 30s and they are still together and happily married.
I hadn't read your post when I posted mine above, but that sounds like the story I read recently.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ohnhai, posted 11-20-2005 5:06 PM ohnhai has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 206 (261605)
11-20-2005 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by randman
11-20-2005 6:01 PM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
quote:
...don't pretend you are doing anything different than the religious right when you don't want 13 year olds having sex with adults, or multiple wives, or whatever.
Can I pretend that I'm different from the religious right if I honestly don't care if 13 year olds have sex with adults?

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 6:01 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by randman, posted 11-20-2005 6:13 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 47 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 10:02 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 30 of 206 (261608)
11-20-2005 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
11-20-2005 11:17 AM


Re: Science doesn't make moral judgements
I'm concerned that, to a fair extent, we're all conflating sexual amorality with sexual immorality; Rand's not asking if science turns normal people into sexual offenders and deviants and rapists (immorality) - he's asking if science leads to a culture of non-judgementality about sexual acts.
That's right....but with a twist. I am not really saying science per se leads to a culture of non-judgementality about sexual acts. I am saying that it seems that, at present, it should if you assume that moral judgements should not be based on religion or personal values, but on scientific ones, and my point is most that bash the religious right are doing the exact same thing as the religious right is doing, but they don't admit that.
I think more understanding could be acheived if there was a little more honesty about what people are doing in the area of morals and ethics, and instead of trying to demonize a group on principle, the argument can shift to specifics. For example, there is nothing wrong at all with the religious right wanted it's morals and values reflected in the law.
The opposing side is trying to do the exact same thing. There is absolutely no difference on principle. The question is on the specifics, who is right and who is wrong. Is a baby a living human being at some point prior to birth, and if so, at what point? To what degree should society acknowledge homosexual unions? Is porn healthy, unhealthy, or none of the government's business? Same with prostitution? Are ages of consent proper for sexual conduct or not? etc,...
These are issues a civil society needs to address without demonizing the other side, making wild claims like they just don't understand science and natural things, or they want to create a theocracy, etc....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2005 11:17 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 11-20-2005 8:51 PM randman has replied
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2005 9:10 PM randman has replied
 Message 37 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2005 4:53 AM randman has replied
 Message 46 by nator, posted 11-21-2005 10:00 AM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024