Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who's More Moral?
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 106 of 125 (391950)
03-28-2007 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by ICANT
03-28-2007 2:21 AM


Re: Required or Desired
quote:
As I have tried to point out Christians should have high morals we should be able to have higher moral standards than anyone else but that is just not true. We don't because we are human and we still live in this old sinful body we have.
Getting back to the topic.
So what would be examples of high morals (which is what I'm guessing some mean by "more moral") as opposed to middle or low morals (not immoral)?
Having a higher moral standard but not following it wouldn't make one more moral.
Please skip the sermon, I know the script.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by ICANT, posted 03-28-2007 2:21 AM ICANT has not replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4675 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 107 of 125 (391956)
03-28-2007 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by ICANT
03-28-2007 2:21 AM


Re: Required or Desired
ICANT writes:
...Christians should have high morals we should be able to have higher moral standards than anyone else, but that is just not true. We don't because we are human and we still live in this old sinful body we have.
The standards don't change just because the person that is supposed to follow them fails to do so.
If we make the judgement of morals (better or worse) about performance, then there is no way to make a judgement.
If my personal moral standards determined by the code that "Get what I want regardless of the consequences to others", then my performance in relation to those standards would probably be very highly rated. In fact, I would probably follow my stated moral standards all the time. However, I doubt that you would consider my morals "better" than a devout Christian's, despite his occasional failures to meet his moral standards.
Of course one could make the case that everyone always follows their personal moral standard regardless of the moral standards to which they claim adherence. That would place us on level ground with no real better or worse.
From my point of view the only way to judge better or worse morals is to judge the moral standards claimed by each group. But what is the yardstick of judgement? God?..which God? The amount of good affected on other people? Then we need a standard of good.
What is that standard?....Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
But I want to go to heaven and, according to Paul, I can't go to heaven if I unrepentantly fornicate. So, I should try to enact laws that keep others from unrepentantly fornicating so they can go to heaven.
But you must be a Christian (insert your definition of that here) to go to heaven. I would want to be exposed only to those things that help me be a good Christian despite myself so I think we should remove other influences from the public eye so everyone can become a Christian despite themselves. Wouldn't that be for the greater good?
Really, this life is short...all your pleasures and freedoms in this life SHOULD be forced to be subordinate to the greater good of eternity in heaven.
I can get more absurd if you like.
The point being that we judge the morals of others based upon our own moral standards and our moral standards appear to be, for the most part, formed by the society and family we live with. Perhaps society's standards are the only ones that can act as the yardstick.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by ICANT, posted 03-28-2007 2:21 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by anastasia, posted 03-28-2007 3:38 PM LinearAq has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 108 of 125 (392008)
03-28-2007 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by LinearAq
03-28-2007 9:15 AM


Re: Required or Desired
LinearAg writes:
If we make the judgement of morals (better or worse) about performance, then there is no way to make a judgement.
I see what you were saying about performance now. Ringo, I believe, was speaking not about individual performance, but of the over-all usefullness of the morals one uses.
Of course one could make the case that everyone always follows their personal moral standard regardless of the moral standards to which they claim adherence. That would place us on level ground with no real better or worse.
It's just the same old duality if you ask me. We always WANT to follow our own moral standards.
This tells us something very easily.
The naturalistic explanations for morality show why we want to do one thing. At one point these things were 'good' for survival. Morality is above and beyond survival to me, although it may still have its goal there. Morality is the function of free will that can choose the best option rather than go with instinct in all cases. This still helps us to survive, but is very different than the 'rape is a survival mechanism and therefore ok' point that I have seen here.
When we are following our own moral codes, we are following one brand of instinct and being purely human. This reverts back to the sermonistic. The 'new man' of Christianity is simply the person who can do what is 'better' in a situation through use of intelligence.
Christian morality is a short cut. It is useless to a person who does not 'own' it. It is like handing a child a calculator and asking them to solve a problem without giving them instructions.
I could speculate that a moral atheist has in some cases not taken the short cut to morality. They don't start with the list. Whatever they end up with is the product of their own reasoning.
The point being that we judge the morals of others based upon our own moral standards and our moral standards appear to be, for the most part, formed by the society and family we live with. Perhaps society's standards are the only ones that can act as the yardstick.
I am not sure what is absurd about your example. It is exactly the type of thinking that went on for hundreds of years. You can see that even those who opposed Galileo had someone's greater good in mind! The only thing that is different today is that we don't allow laws and rules made which concern salvation of another. At one point we did, because in certain societies there was not much diversity of opinion, and those who were a 'threat' to the salvation of another were persecuted.
At this point in time it is only bodily harm that is considered to be a threat.This is why some will say that we are 'less' moral. If less equals fewer rules, I agree. If less means it is harder to live as a Christian, I agree a bit too.
But you say 'society's standards are the only ones that can act as a yardstick', and this behaviour of ousting dissidents went on for so long because christianity was society's standard! It was the will of the people until the people's will changed, until the society became diversified, and new freedoms became popular.
Morality today is the same for Christians and non, as I have said before, minus the salvation bits. Minus the do unto God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by LinearAq, posted 03-28-2007 9:15 AM LinearAq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by ICANT, posted 03-28-2007 5:34 PM anastasia has not replied
 Message 112 by kuresu, posted 03-28-2007 7:12 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 109 of 125 (392021)
03-28-2007 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by anastasia
03-25-2007 12:57 AM


Wow, Agreed
anastasia writes:
While there may be no absolute moral, there can be an absolute morality. This is precisely, doing the best we can at every moment given what we know now, and I do still believe that there are always better or even perfect things which we may attain to some day.
(bolding mine)
I whole-heartedly agree with what you've said here (the bolding, anyway, and what follows). If you really do believe this, then I think our two moralities are a lot more similar then they are different.
Although, I do find calling this an 'absolute' morality to be somewhat misleading. I'd go more for... a "constant guideline". Actually... 'guideline' is too soft. "Constant rule"? Perhaps? I dunno... I just call it my morality

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by anastasia, posted 03-25-2007 12:57 AM anastasia has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 110 of 125 (392025)
03-28-2007 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by anastasia
03-28-2007 3:38 PM


Re: Required or Desired
It's just the same old duality if you ask me. We always WANT to follow our own moral standards.
Therein lies the problem.
How do we decide what is moral and what is immoral?
If we all set our own moral standards there can be a big difference.
So if you are going to try to decide who is more moral there would have to be a standardized code to go by.
I probably think many things are immoral that many of you might not have a problem with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by anastasia, posted 03-28-2007 3:38 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 111 of 125 (392030)
03-28-2007 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by anastasia
03-25-2007 6:39 PM


Re: Topic : Contrast Morality
anastasia writes:
Stile said something, and I paraphrase; those who have a God-based morality are leaving their morals to 'chance'. I didn't really understand this even after responding to him.
I didn't mean to be cryptic. Here's a basic layout to my thought process:
-Some theist morality is based on their God
-Their God cannot be shown to me, or another
-Without the ability to show that their God exists, there remains the possibility/chance, however small, that this God does not exist
-Therefore, any theist morality based on this, is based on some semblence (possibly very small, possibly not...) of chance
-My moral thoughts/ideas are too important to base them on anything I can't show to another person to be true
My moral 'system' allows for atheists to be equally moral.
I think "people" are moral. Some people are theists... some are atheists. Therefore... some theists are moral, some are not. And some atheists are moral, and some are not.
I contend that important ideals such as morality should be based on that which we can show to others, and therefore "not made up". And never just accepted because someone says so (regardless of whether that someone believes in God or not).
The structure of theism simply lends itself more easily to people trusting in "what other people say" over "what can be shown". The structure also allows for easy connections to morality... most holy books contain plenty of "thou shalls" and "thou shalt nots". This leads us to having a large number of people believing that moral high-ground is simply listening to their religion, and not actually giving any reasoning for it. Which is very dangerous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by anastasia, posted 03-25-2007 6:39 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by anastasia, posted 03-28-2007 7:23 PM Stile has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 112 of 125 (392031)
03-28-2007 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by anastasia
03-28-2007 3:38 PM


Re: Required or Desired
i hate to waste another post with this (too late). i really need to chat tonight with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by anastasia, posted 03-28-2007 3:38 PM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 113 of 125 (392033)
03-28-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Stile
03-28-2007 6:49 PM


Re: Topic : Contrast Morality
Stile writes:
I didn't mean to be cryptic. Here's a basic layout to my thought process:
Glad you found the thread Stile.
I understood what you meant, theoretically.
I don't know if you have a religious background at all. This I wonder only because this theory of leaving morality to chance does not seem to me consistant with what I feel as a religious person.
I contend that important ideals such as morality should be based on that which we can show to others, and therefore "not made up". And never just accepted because someone says so (regardless of whether that someone believes in God or not).
What exactly can not be shown to others? What is 'made up'? Specific morals? Or the purpose in following them?
You say morality is based on God, and God can not be shown to you. I just don't know practically speaking what 'based on God' is.
Based on the Bible? The Commandments?
The structure of theism simply lends itself more easily to people trusting in "what other people say" over "what can be shown".
The structure of humanity leads to us believing each other. I hate to bring this up, but in all reality, can ANY of us show that abortion is or is not painful or murderous?
In general, much of religious teaching is something that can be shown to another. There are reasons for everything. Your average Chrsitian might not know the long, long process from a to b. Sure, some things are taken as fact, as in a deity. But when you get down to the nitty gritty of morality, I would like some example of morals that can't be shown to another person.
The structure also allows for easy connections to morality... most holy books contain plenty of "thou shalls" and "thou shalt nots". This leads us to having a large number of people believing that moral high-ground is simply listening to their religion, and not actually giving any reasoning for it. Which is very dangerous.
Well, again, have any specific 'thous shalts' that we can consider?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Stile, posted 03-28-2007 6:49 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Stile, posted 03-29-2007 9:29 AM anastasia has replied
 Message 115 by kuresu, posted 03-30-2007 5:50 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 114 of 125 (392092)
03-29-2007 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by anastasia
03-28-2007 7:23 PM


For important things, show rather than accept
anastasia writes:
I don't know if you have a religious background at all. This I wonder only because this theory of leaving morality to chance does not seem to me consistant with what I feel as a religious person.
I was born into a Catholic family. Well, my mom was (or is, I suppose) strongly Catholic. And my dad was (and still is...) weakly, um... I always forget... Protestant or Lutheran or something. My dad never made a fuss, we just weekly went to Catholic church as a family. Always said prayers before dinner, and before bedtime. Read the bible as a family on a Sunday-night basis. I was an alter boy at the local church. Grew into the head-alter boy, even servicing weddings and funerals. I was Baptized, had First-Communion and was Confirmed. I went to a Catholic grade-school, and a Catholic high-school.
Three doors down from my house lived a Preacher for the local Baptist church/school. Their family had 3 sons, with whom I played with and was good friends with as I grew up. I was also active in their Baptist church. I went to Sunday school with them, I went to Sunday church with them (as well as with my family... as a family we usually went Saturday night). I played on their church baseball team. I'd help out and attend their church fellow-ship days... basically church "play-days" for the kids. I even became "saved" by accepting Jesus Christ into my heart one morning after their church when I asked the Pastor to do that for me.
I never once felt like I was pressured to be a part of either church, or was being indoctrinated, or wasn't getting a full education (total opposite on that, actually). We had an amazingly liberal and nice Catholic Priest. The Baptist Pastor was rather strict and literal (no swearing, no rock music... like that) but it was my choice to hang out with those friends and spend time with them so I never felt it as overbearing or anything.
But as for leaving it up to chance... it's as I explained it above. I understand that most (all?) theists believe there is no chance their God doesn't exist. Yet, the chance that it is false exists for me, and hence I do not understand how anyone can rest their ideals on something not provably-rooted in fact. Some people believe that something can be a fact without being able to reproduce it, or show it to another (any other) person. I do not believe this. Facts are things we can all be shown and all agree upon. Anything else is... not a fact, but interpretation of those facts some how.
I need to base my important ideals on facts, to make sure I'm not even fooling myself. I cannot leave my ideals up to interpretations of those facts. If I did, I may be leaving my ideals up to someone elses interpretation, or maybe my own interpretation, but even then I still wouldn't know if my interpretation was valid or not.
What exactly can not be shown to others?
The basis for the morals. Why we have those morals. In religion.. it's possible that these religious morals could simply be a group of people's interpretation of facts from thousands of years ago. It may also be from an all powerfull God. Of course, we cannot prove, or show, either case. Which is my point, that it is left up to some amount of chance, or "hope" that it is right. Instead of being grounded on a foundation that we can show, and therefore "know" that it is right.
The structure of humanity leads to us believing each other.
Yes, but it also leads us to showing things to each other.
can ANY of us show that abortion is or is not painful or murderous?
Perhaps one day, yes. Perhaps even now, someone is capable of that. But, also, it can be shown that the baby is inside the woman. It can be shown that the woman could be in pain, or may die. It can also be shown that the pregnancy is very close to term, within days of occuring. It can also be shown that the pregnancy was a choice between two people, or shown that it was one person forcing themselves onto another.
My point is, I would much rather leave the debate of abortion up to what people can show, or prove. Rather then leaving it up to "Well, I've heard that it's bad. So let's never do it."
There are reasons for everything.
Yes, but some of those reasons are simply "because God says so". Or "because it was written in this here book". These particular reasons are simply unacceptable. Yet, in a religious sense, they somehow become extremely convincing to some people. I'm not saying that a theist isn't able to show anything In fact, I've said quite the opposite many times already. A theist should just have to show things are right as much as anyone else should before condemning or laying judgement on other people.
anastasia writes:
Well, again, have any specific 'thous shalts' that we can consider?
I tried this with gay marriage... it didn't go so well. Let's try... sex before marriage. Why should this be immoral?
-I can show you that sex before marriage can increase knowledge between two people about themselves. Therefore letting them make a better decision about whether or not they should be together.
-I can show you that sex before marriage can be done safely... pregnancy precautions such as condoms or birth control pills. I can show you that niether of those options have any negative side affects. Most people don't get sick from their usage. And some women are even helped by the use of birth control pills for other things (menstruation cycle).
-I can show you that NOT having sex before marriage can lead to problems within a marriage that the couple would have been able to deal with before the marriage if they had of been open with each other. Sexual problems as in.. if one partner actually dislikes sex, and the other finds out that they crave it... this will not go over well within a marriage.
I'm not saying that ALL couples should have sex before they get married. I'm saying it shouldn't be a moral no-no for them to, if they so decide upon it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by anastasia, posted 03-28-2007 7:23 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by anastasia, posted 04-06-2007 2:36 PM Stile has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 115 of 125 (392372)
03-30-2007 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by anastasia
03-28-2007 7:23 PM


Sorry Och Sorry
i'm wasting yet another post here (and hoping the admins don't suspend me over this). as soon as you can, i need to chat to with you. (and if you could check the thread "Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC" (http://EvC Forum: Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC -->EvC Forum: Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC) i wouldn't have to grab your attention on your thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by anastasia, posted 03-28-2007 7:23 PM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 116 of 125 (393712)
04-06-2007 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Stile
03-29-2007 9:29 AM


Re: For important things, show rather than accept
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I got tied up elsewhere.
It's better this way because I do now see where you are coming from.
Things still come back to woning your morality.
If a person or church imposes rules upon me based on 'God said so' or 'God wishes this to be so' it CAN seem that there may turn out to be no real basis for the rule.
What is important is to understand the rules, and decide for yourself if they are valid or just. If you agree with them, then there is no 'chance' element.
For example, we can agree that being good to others has useful consequences in and out of religion. It might seem frivolous or silly to worry about eating meat, or praying, or being against certain actions, if it turns out there is no God. St Paul also warns about rules that are too strict and turn licit behaviours into no-no's.
Stile writes:
Facts are things we can all be shown and all agree upon. Anything else is... not a fact, but interpretation of those facts some how.
There are morals that can be shown, in a way, yes. Everyone relates to kindness and can see that kindness is a desirable thing.
My point is, I would much rather leave the debate of abortion up to what people can show, or prove. Rather then leaving it up to "Well, I've heard that it's bad. So let's never do it."
Well, I don't think that, for the most part, people follow a religious moral without personal conviction of its validity. In other words, women in and out of religion can feel abortion is wrong based on what their body tells them. Some people can stay away from things based on trust of another person's rendition of a dusty old book, but there are not too many morals that we have to just accept on faith. If someone told me that I can only wash my car once a month and with distilled water, I could question that! if there is no reason behind it. I have found that most religious morals have some reason behind them that are not empirical per se, but can still be shown sufficiently to me to allow for belief in their worth.
Yes, but some of those reasons are simply "because God says so". Or "because it was written in this here book". These particular reasons are simply unacceptable.
This is as I said above. I don't find that it is true in many cases if at all. God says keep holy the Sabbath. There are still many reasons why a religious person would benefit from doing this apart from what God says.
There are not so many reasons for a secular person to not work on Sunday or to attend church. But still this 'moral' is capable of being shown to Christians as 'good'.
I tried this with gay marriage... it didn't go so well. Let's try... sex before marriage. Why should this be immoral?
I am not going to get uptight about the 'before marriage' part. It is more about having sex without commitment. You I am sure can see that this would be immoral if a child will not be cared for as a result.
Birth control does not make this problem disappear entirely. It is not fool proof, not safe for all women, not proven safe long term. There have been many bad varieties that had consequences to the fertility of female children. Then, of course, there is still that question of whether it is murder. There is still that question of whether sex SHOULD be used for fun. You will find that to some people, it is very important to save sexual activity for a commited relationship even for mental reasons. So yes, it is not empirical either way IMO, it depends on the individual's convictions. I don't think that people will practice abstinance without some sort of belief in its validity. (not just a God says so)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Stile, posted 03-29-2007 9:29 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Stile, posted 04-07-2007 11:07 AM anastasia has replied
 Message 121 by ReverendDG, posted 04-08-2007 4:03 AM anastasia has replied

  
alienheadbaby
Junior Member (Idle past 6200 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 04-06-2007


Message 117 of 125 (393774)
04-06-2007 10:02 PM


Rob On Morality??? Are you kidding?
Please don't make me share the real robert with these people....
get off or of your horse and step away from the bible. It is not a weapon you see. You seem to use your belief in god to judge others quite a bit and only disclosing what you wish of yourself, painting a very bias picture of "Rob" the christian. can we say hypocrisy? I Know You Robert. just for giggles do you still that gas wasting lifted 4X4 of yours in a time of global warming? is that a moral or an ethical thing?

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by AdminNosy, posted 04-06-2007 10:33 PM alienheadbaby has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 118 of 125 (393778)
04-06-2007 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by alienheadbaby
04-06-2007 10:02 PM


No personal attacks please
alienheadbaby:
The forum guidelines require that you not use personal attacks on posters.
They don't cover the situation where one poster actually knows another but I will tell you NOT to bring personal information of Rob's to the forum! Rob must be allowed as much privacy as he desires.
One more, teeny, tiny step over this line and you will be suspended for a very long time.
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by alienheadbaby, posted 04-06-2007 10:02 PM alienheadbaby has not replied

  
alienheadbaby
Junior Member (Idle past 6200 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 04-06-2007


Message 119 of 125 (393782)
04-06-2007 11:40 PM


consider this is one more teeny tiny step
i'll suspend myself thank you... please remove me from your system.

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 120 of 125 (393813)
04-07-2007 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by anastasia
04-06-2007 2:36 PM


Re: For important things, show rather than accept
anastasia writes:
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I got tied up elsewhere.
Take your time, that's the benefit of a system like this
What is important is to understand the rules, and decide for yourself if they are valid or just. If you agree with them, then there is no 'chance' element.
Here is where I disagree. Simply agreeing with something doesn't remove the "chance element" that it could be false. I don't see how that would work.
Well, I don't think that, for the most part, people follow a religious moral without personal conviction of its validity.
But that's my point. "Personal conviction of it's validity" isn't a good enough reason to hold a moral value. I can have "personal conviction" of the validity of beating on women. That doesn't make it right. I need to be able to show how beating on women is a good moral action. I think this is impossible, and easy to show that beating on women is a bad moral action.
But the point is, I don't think beating women is a bad thing because of some "personal conviction". I have that personal conviction because I can show how all people are equal, and how women are people. Without having that ability to show your personal convictions are correct, we're left with the possibility that our personal convictions are simply wrong, and even evil.
But still this 'moral' is capable of being shown to Christians as 'good'.
You are lowering the definition of my term "show". I don't mean show as in "You should believe this because I say so" "Oh, okay, thanks for showing that to me." I mean show as in proving, and having evidence that cannot be misconstrued. Simply agreeing with someone isn't having it shown to you that something is good.
I am not going to get uptight about the 'before marriage' part. It is more about having sex without commitment. You I am sure can see that this would be immoral if a child will not be cared for as a result.
So you agree then, that sex before marriage between two careful, loving, consenting adults is not immoral? Because nothing you have said displays otherwise.
Yes, I know birth control pills don't work for everyone. That is irrelevant. People allergic to latex can't use condoms either. So? Those are not the only possible methods of birth control. How does that possibly make careful, loving, consenting sex before marriage immoral?
Then, of course, there is still that question of whether it is murder.
What? Using birth control is murder? Preventing conception is murder? Any girl how doesn't have sex once per ovulation cycle is committing murder? You've got to be joking on that one.
There is still that question of whether sex SHOULD be used for fun.
Yes. But that is subjective. And regardless of you (or anyone else) thinking sex should not be fun, means nothing for someone else thinking it should be used for fun.
You will find that to some people, it is very important to save sexual activity for a commited relationship even for mental reasons.
Very true. How does this have any bearing whatsoever on people who do not think this way?
So yes, it is not empirical either way IMO, it depends on the individual's convictions.
No, this is wrong. It cannot be shown empirically (or, at least, you haven't) why it should be considered immoral. Therefore, it should not be considered immoral. Careful, loving, consentual sex before marriage should not be considered immoral.
It's like.. eating an apple. Eating an apple doesn't hurt anyone, and therefore is not immoral. It's just something people do.
Careful, loving, consentual sex before marriage doesn't hurt anyone, and therefore is not immoral. It's just something that careful, loving, consentual adults do.
In fact, considering it immoral, when it should not be, is in itself an immoral act. This causes you to judge people needlessly. Someone thinking they are worse, when they really are doing nothing wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by anastasia, posted 04-06-2007 2:36 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by anastasia, posted 04-09-2007 7:31 PM Stile has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024