No Moral Absolutes?

by Rex B13 31 Replies latest jw friends

Rex B13

Hi Gang,
Those who claim that morality is subjective have painted themselves into a corner. How about this, Kent, Big Jim, Seeker, A.F., J.H., Troglodyte Trilobyte, Hippo the Dippo, Lisa Baby, Mulan, LDH, Boynenko, et al?
1) I was just wondering how anyone who believes that morality is subjective can actually take a stand against pedophilia?
WHY is it any worse than homosexuality or lesbianism?
WHAT age is considered acceptable? After all, the claim is that "morality is subjective to the norms of society".
The greeks (especially the atheistic intellectuals and philosophers) were enamored with taking young boys under their wings and starting them out with man-boy love. Exposure to this kind of thing eventually resulted in the death of Alexander the Great, who died from syphillis at 28 after having sex with countless men and women.
2) How does one take a stand on teenage (or pre-teen) sexual activity when it is actually none of your business, even as a parent (according to secular organizations like Planned Parenthood, etc., the A.C.L.U.)?
3) How do you feel about the Center for Disease Control lying about the effectiveness of condoms regrading lots of the new STDs? We see very clearly that there is a political agenda to make people believe that sex is generally without risk or GUILT and should that over-ride the results of actual clinical studies, putting all of us at risk? Did you know that there actually was a point in the early 80s where AIDS could have been stopped with a quarrantine but it was not used because of the homosexual political/entertainment/media connections!
4) Should those who are infected be prosecuted if they continue to expose people to STDs even after they are diagnosed? If not, why not?
5) How would you establish a moral/legal guideline any more effective than pre-1960 American norms?
6) Why would you continue to promote illicit sex when it is proven to result in so many problems for society? Abortions, teen preggies, kids raised without parents, delinquency run rampant, welfare subjegating people to the state.
Sex is truly wonderful when practiced in a responsible manner and it does not necessarily have to be along Biblical guidelines to be safe for all involved
Bozos like Big Jim like to post all kinds of questions to Christians, so some questions to all of you 'Bible bashers' should not cause any chagrin.
Cheers!
Rex
Seeker

There are no moral absolutes in the abstract, but in real life there are some morally correct things. Long before there was a concept of religion, or the Bible, humans noticed that some actions caused harm to individuals and to the society in which they belonged. Murder, for instance, was horrific, and thus became almost universally condemned, as it should. Just because morality is subjective, it doesn't mean we can't all agree on certain levels of subjectivity. We all know murder is wrong, atheists and believers alike. If believers want to say God condemns murder, that's fine with the atheists who avoid murder simply because it is wrong, not because they are told not to do it.
So all your examples are meaningless, for no one is defending immoral acts. Just because we have no need of God, it doesn't mean we accept any actions as moral -- we don't.
In fact, my morality can basically be summarized (in simplified form) as: do what you want, as long as no one gets hurt.
Think of the implications of that: Do you want to overeat to the point of obesity? Can't do it, it would harm yourself. Do you want to commit adultery? Can't do it, it would harm your mate. Want to kill that annoying person over there? Can't do it, it would be harmful to that person, his friends and family, and society at large. Want to engage in sex with a child? Can't do it, it would harm the child, etc.
It actually makes for a very moral person. Now to comment on your lists, but only from MY point of view (I can't speak for any one else). You won't agree with what I say, but that's fine for I don't agree with your level of morality either. I think you are a very immoral person, for you support an idea that will lead to the death and torture of countless humans.
1) I was just wondering how anyone who believes that morality is subjective can actually take a stand against pedophilia?
I am against anything that would harm children.
WHY is it any worse than homosexuality or lesbianism?
Because adults get to make their own choices and are emotionally capable of dealing with sex.
WHAT age is considered acceptable?
No such number can be given, for each person matures at different levels.
2) How does one take a stand on teenage (or pre-teen) sexual activity when it is actually none of your business, even as a parent (according to secular organizations like Planned Parenthood, etc., the A.C.L.U.)?
It is very much your business as a parent, and no one can take that away, even though Christians keep trying to do so by forcing their agendas into the schools despite what non-Christian parents want. Still, though I disagree with Christians, and you disagree with Planned Parenthood, it doesn't change the fact that you as a parent have a full say. Assuming you rear your children correctly, of course.
3) How do you feel about the Center for Disease Control lying about the effectiveness of condoms regrading lots of the new STDs? We see very clearly that there is a political agenda to make people believe that sex is generally without risk or GUILT and should that over-ride the results of actual clinical studies, putting all of us at risk? Did you know that there actually was a point in the early 80s where AIDS could have been stopped with a quarrantine but it was not used because of the homosexual political/entertainment/media connections!
Of course it couldn't have been stopped with a quarrantine! It was worldwide in the 1970s, even though no one knew it yet. Besides, a quarrantine sounds like the worst moments of human history. No death camps for me, please.
As for condom use, it helps, but no one says it is 100% effective. What lies has the CDC made? Be specific with references.
4) Should those who are infected be prosecuted if they continue to expose people to STDs even after they are diagnosed? If not, why not?
If they are doing it deliberately, with full knowledge of their actions, of course. They would be harming others, and that is morally wrong.
5) How would you establish a moral/legal guideline any more effective than pre-1960 American norms?
You mean back when the adults were getting drunk, wife swapping, and hating their lives but couldn't talk about it? You mean back when the kids were sneaking around having sex and then getting abortions in the back alley? Yes, a wonderful time to be living, if you were a hypocrite.
What would I establish? Nothing. It's none of my business what you do. I worry about myself and my family.
6) Why would you continue to promote illicit sex when it is proven to result in so many problems for society? Abortions, teen preggies, kids raised without parents, delinquency run rampant, welfare subjegating people to the state.
All those things are more prevalent in America than in Scandinavian countries, where sex is more open and accepted, and thus the kids are far less obsessed with it. The more you clamp down, the more enticing sex becomes to your children.
Instead, teach them responsbile but loving ideas about sex, don't condemn someting so natural, and watch the abortion rate drop, the pregnancy rate drop, the deliquency rate drop. It happens, just look at other countries. Your Christian obsession with sex dooms your children to be messed up.
Jimmer

"Do as you want, as long as no one gets hurt."
That is a value statement; a statement asserting a moral stand, a judgment on what constitutes right and wrong.
So, hurting someone is wrong? And if an act does not "hurt" someone, then it is okay?
Define "hurt," please.
More importantly, how do you know hurting someone is wrong? On what grounds do you make that assertion?
Seems to me you are trying to claim moral relativism regards to some acts and a moral absolute to others.
You can not have it both ways. Either there is an objective standard (moral obsolute) to measure human behavior or there is not. There is no fence riding on this matter.
Seeker

Sorry, there is no moral absolutism, and yet there are accepted standards. Take murder. Is it always, 100% wrong? No, for in the case of euthenasia, it can be acceptable, even to the person being murdered.
What is "harm"? Do you really need that defined? Harm can be emotional (in the case of the wronged mate when the other cheats), or physical (murder), or in any other way that brings pain to a human.
If an act causes no harm to yourself or to anyone else, then yes, I think it is OK. If you think it is not OK, please explain the harm that is being caused.
Trilobite

If something is an absolute then obviously it cannot change. So if moral absolutes actually exist one would expect that humanity would have a consistent set of ideals or standards that not only would not vary from society to society but which also would not change over time. That is clearly not the case. Concepts of morality vary considerably between different societies and cultures and between different time periods.
The moral standards set out in the Bible also varied over time; in certain periods polygamy was acceptable or even required. One might think that the prohibition on murder is a moral absolute. It clearly isn't since what constitutes murder depends on what the law happens to be. When Phinehas so kindly ran the Israelite chieftan and the Midianite woman through the genitals with his sword he was zealously protecting the moral standards of Israel, not committing murder, right? The Israelites were quite happy to slaughter thousands of women and children when they moved into the Promised land. Today much of what they did would be called war crimes but they didn't consider it to be murder since they were acting on God's behalf.
The notion that Dispensational Periods existed further demonstrates that moral standards are far from absolute since God has held mankind to different standards at different times. After all, Lot, who slept with his own daughters was, to God, a righteous man. Even if he hadn't realized that they were his daughters because he was so drunk this righteous man was clearly not a subscriber to Fundie sexual mores.
As usual, Rex, you demonstrate your inability to think straight, if at all. As societies and humanity in general have evolved moral standards have changed and have generally moved towards protection of the individual rather than enforcing arbitrary religious rules. A lot of this has to do with the recognition of the importance of individual rights. For example, apart from the Fundies, most people now recognize that women are not property which has led to vastly enlightened standards.
T.
Farkel

: 1) I was just wondering how anyone who believes that morality is subjective can actually take a stand against pedophilia?
Even if a child is not hurt emotionally or physically by an act (if that is indeed possible) with a pedophile, most societies find such conduct so hideous that the child cannot help but be influenced by it in a horribly negative way, once the child finds out how his/her society feels about it.
There have been other cultures where it was considered the father's duty to "train" his daughters in the ways of sex. I've seen no studies on what kind of damage could have been done to a child where such things are totally acceptable and even encourged in a society. It would be fascinating to see some research on that matter.
I agree with the notion that there are no or maybe only a few moral absolutes. There are just too many possible situations in life for a moral absolute to be universally applied, IMHO.
It's not really the "morals" that bother me, Rex. What bothers me are those who try to shove THEIR morals down my throat. Since we're both ex-dubs, I'm sure you can understand why I feel that way.
Farkel
Francois

The cause of death of Alexander the Great is not known with finality. The smart money is on malaria. Fundys like to say it was VD, but they have an axe to grind, and are hardly sources of objective information...like the rest of your post.
A walk through the sea of your intellect would hardly dampen the soles of my feet.
Where it is a duty to worship the Sun you can be sure that a study of the laws of heat is a crime.
Rex B13

>There are no moral absolutes in the abstract, but in real life there are some morally correct things.
According to whom? Who sets the accepted norm? In the past it was 'wrong' for races to intermarry, 'wrong' to be lesbian or homosexual, wrong to have pre-marital sex and the list goes on.
>Long before there was a concept of religion, or the Bible, humans noticed that some actions caused harm to individuals and to the society in which they belonged.
"Long before" is a broad, unprovable statement. You have no idea that worship has not existed hand in hand and well before any laws were recognized.
>Murder, for instance, was horrific,
Really? When was 'murder' defined and what about circumstances surrounding a death?
>and thus became almost universally condemned, as it should.
It is still not universally condemned. In fact, it never has been when one looks at history.
>Just because morality is subjective, it doesn't mean we can't all agree on certain levels of subjectivity.
But we all don't agree on the subject of morals!
>We all know murder is wrong, atheists and believers alike.
Define 'murder'. You are now starting to prove a inherent coscience that exists because God put it there. There is no reason that it should develop under evolutionary pressure since the strongest and the smartest are the survivors. Without that programming from God society should not have progressed beyond a rudimentary level.
>If believers want to say God condemns murder, that's fine with the atheists who avoid murder simply because it is wrong, not because they are told not to do it.
Where did the original law against 'murder' come from? Or conversely, aren't you proving a God given conscience that is inherent in all creation?
>So all your examples are meaningless, for no one is defending immoral acts. Just because we have no need of God, it doesn't mean we accept any actions as moral -- we don't.
Where is your moral absolute then? What guideline is valid since we all have different views on morality?
>In fact, my morality can basically be summarized (in simplified form) as: do what you want, as long as no one gets hurt.
The A.P.A. recently tried to say take pedeophilia off the 'sick' list!
>think of the implications of that: Do you want to overeat to the point of obesity? Can't do it, it would harm yourself.
Some say that we should be able to harm our sells
>do you want to commit adultery? Can't do it, it would harm your mate. Want to kill that annoying person over there? Can't do it, it would be harmful to that person, his friends and family, and society at large. Want to engage in sex with a child? Can't do it, it would harm the child, etc.
You have just seen the tip of the iceberg in your delimma. Who determines the moral absolutes in the society that I mentioned, ancient Greece, and Rome is another good example?
>t actually makes for a very moral person. Now to comment on your lists, but only from MY point of view (I can't speak for any one else). You won't agree with what I say, but that's fine for I don't agree with your level of morality either. I think you are a very immoral person, for you support an idea that will lead to the death and torture of countless humans.
You have no right to judge me for you have no real guideline to follow. I do not support an 'idea', I give credence to inspired scripture which tells me that sinful man will die in separation from God without accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and saviour.
quote:
1) I was just wondering how anyone who believes that morality is subjective can actually take a stand against pedophilia?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> am against anything that would harm children.
So am I. I have a moral absolute to follow.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY is it any worse than homosexuality or lesbianism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Because adults get to make their own choices and are emotionally capable of dealing with sex.
Who says? Where is your moral guidline? It is subjectiove to the norms of the society that promotes or condemns it.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT age is considered acceptable?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>No such number can be given, for each person matures at different levels.
So, then sex with children is sometimes OK?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) How does one take a stand on teenage (or pre-teen) sexual activity when it is actually none of your business, even as a parent (according to secular organizations like Planned Parenthood, etc., the A.C.L.U.)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>It is very much your business as a parent, and no one can take that away,
Not according to society, they can get all the birth control they want and not inform you.
>even though Christians keep trying to do so by forcing their agendas into the schools despite what non-Christian parents want.
Rhetoric wiothout proof is just bull....
>Still, though I disagree with Christians, and you disagree with Planned Parenthood, it doesn't change the fact that you as a parent have a full say. Assuming you rear your children correctly, of course.
Wait a minute, correctly? Who determines that?
5) How would you establish a moral/legal guideline any more effective than pre-1960 American norms?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>You mean back when the adults were getting drunk, wife swapping, and hating their lives but couldn't talk about it? You mean back when the kids were sneaking around having sex and then getting abortions in the back alley? Yes, a wonderful time to be living, if you were a hypocrite.
You've no evidence for that being anywhere near the norm and look at the way authority has been undermined to the point of our society being ready to crumble!
Yes, you yourself are a hypocrite because your beliefs are not any more valid than mine are, you just claim they are.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) Why would you continue to promote illicit sex when it is proven to result in so many problems for society? Abortions, teen preggies, kids raised without parents, delinquency run rampant, welfare subjegating people to the state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>ll those things are more prevalent in America than in Scandinavian countries, where sex is more open and accepted, and thus the kids are far less obsessed with it. The more you clamp down, the more enticing sex becomes to your children.
That is deliberate, liberal context twisting (comparing apples to oranges) MISINFORMATION. You believe this is true because this is what you have been told.
>nstead, teach them responsbile but loving ideas about sex, don't condemn someting so natural, and watch the abortion rate drop, the pregnancy rate drop, the deliquency rate drop. It happens, just look at other countries. Your Christian obsession with sex dooms your children to be messed up.
Cite the examples please, cite the context please. You are just using ACLU style rhetoric.
Rex
Rex B13

Go away troglodyte Alan. You are an intellectual idiot who plays only to the grandstand.....I don't take you seriously anymore.
Rex
Seeker

>There are no moral absolutes in the abstract, but in real life there are some morally correct things.
According to whom? Who sets the accepted norm? In the past it was 'wrong' for races to intermarry, 'wrong' to be lesbian or homosexual, wrong to have pre-marital sex and the list goes on.

According to what worked in a society. Some things proved to be beneficial, some things proved to be harmful. The harmful acts began to be considered 'wrong' because of the harm they caused. This is all long before your types came along and said 'God says homosexuality is wrong.'
>Long before there was a concept of religion, or the Bible, humans noticed that some actions caused harm to individuals and to the society in which they belonged.
"Long before" is a broad, unprovable statement. You have no idea that worship has not existed hand in hand and well before any laws were recognized.
It is a fact that laws pre-date the Bible. And it is easy to realize that long before humans would have reached the point of conceiving the concept of religion they would have noticed that killing their friend was a bad thing to do.
>Murder, for instance, was horrific,
Really? When was 'murder' defined and what about circumstances surrounding a death?
The first time one human killed another human, however many millions of years ago it was, it was noticed as being a bad thing.
>and thus became almost universally condemned, as it should.
It is still not universally condemned. In fact, it never has been when one looks at history.
What part of 'almost' did not sink in?
>Just because morality is subjective, it doesn't mean we can't all agree on certain levels of subjectivity.
But we all don't agree on the subject of morals!
On certain levels we do: you and I both agree that to kill one another is wrong.

>We all know murder is wrong, atheists and believers alike.
Define 'murder'. You are now starting to prove a inherent coscience that exists because God put it there.
Nope. As soon as one human killed another human ('murder'), the bad consequences were apparent to others. No conscience involved, just simple observation of an event and its consequences.
There is no reason that it should develop under evolutionary pressure since the strongest and the smartest are the survivors. Without that programming from God society should not have progressed beyond a rudimentary level.
Nonense. Killing is harmful to society as a whole. Besides, you are confusing the concept of evolution.
>If believers want to say God condemns murder, that's fine with the atheists who avoid murder simply because it is wrong, not because they are told not to do it.
Where did the original law against 'murder' come from? Or conversely, aren't you proving a God given conscience that is inherent in all creation?
As soon as one human killed another (I'll keep repeating this until you understand), the bad consequences were apparent to others. Over time, societal laws were created because of these bad consequences. No God, no conscience, just observed consequences. Experience.
>So all your examples are meaningless, for no one is defending immoral acts. Just because we have no need of God, it doesn't mean we accept any actions as moral -- we don't.
Where is your moral absolute then? What guideline is valid since we all have different views on morality?
I told you -- if someone is harmed then it is wrong. We can all agree not to harm each other.
>In fact, my morality can basically be summarized (in simplified form) as: do what you want, as long as no one gets hurt.
The A.P.A. recently tried to say take pedeophilia off the 'sick' list!
And this has WHAT to do with my statement?
>think of the implications of that: Do you want to overeat to the point of obesity? Can't do it, it would harm yourself.
Some say that we should be able to harm our sells
That's their choice, not mine.
>do you want to commit adultery? Can't do it, it would harm your mate. Want to kill that annoying person over there? Can't do it, it would be harmful to that person, his friends and family, and society at large. Want to engage in sex with a child? Can't do it, it would harm the child, etc.
You have just seen the tip of the iceberg in your delimma. Who determines the moral absolutes in the society that I mentioned, ancient Greece, and Rome is another good example?
I am talking about MY morality. No dilemma whatsoever.

>t actually makes for a very moral person. Now to comment on your lists, but only from MY point of view (I can't speak for any one else). You won't agree with what I say, but that's fine for I don't agree with your level of morality either. I think you are a very immoral person, for you support an idea that will lead to the death and torture of countless humans.
You have no right to judge me for you have no real guideline to follow. I do not support an 'idea', I give credence to inspired scripture which tells me that sinful man will die in separation from God without accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and saviour.
You can judge me, I can judge you. I have a real guideline to follow -- my morality which says it is wrong to harm others. You support a system that will bring about harm to others. I therefore judge you as immoral.
> am against anything that would harm children.
So am I. I have a moral absolute to follow.
Me too -- do no harm.
>Because adults get to make their own choices and are emotionally capable of dealing with sex.
Who says? Where is your moral guidline? It is subjectiove to the norms of the society that promotes or condemns it.
It causes no harm, either to the participants, or to society, and therefore I see nothing wrong with it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT age is considered acceptable?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>No such number can be given, for each person matures at different levels.
So, then sex with children is sometimes OK?
I said nothing about children. All I said is that you can't give an absolute age (such as 18 or 21) that would fit all persons. Some person are not emotionally ready for sex at age 22; others are ready at age 17.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) How does one take a stand on teenage (or pre-teen) sexual activity when it is actually none of your business, even as a parent (according to secular organizations like Planned Parenthood, etc., the A.C.L.U.)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>It is very much your business as a parent, and no one can take that away,
Not according to society, they can get all the birth control they want and not inform you.
You should have an open communication with your own child. If you have lost that, it's your fault, not society's.
>even though Christians keep trying to do so by forcing their agendas into the schools despite what non-Christian parents want.
Rhetoric wiothout proof is just bull....
Says the king of rhetoric without proof. You really need me to provide links to news articles about how the Christian right wants to ban discussions of evolution, or sex education, or force filters on Web browsers, etc? You are being disingenuous.
>Still, though I disagree with Christians, and you disagree with Planned Parenthood, it doesn't change the fact that you as a parent have a full say. Assuming you rear your children correctly, of course.
Wait a minute, correctly? Who determines that?
The proof is in the pudding. If your children go around behind your backs, you must not have reared them correctly. That is what I meant.
5) How would you establish a moral/legal guideline any more effective than pre-1960 American norms?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>You mean back when the adults were getting drunk, wife swapping, and hating their lives but couldn't talk about it? You mean back when the kids were sneaking around having sex and then getting abortions in the back alley? Yes, a wonderful time to be living, if you were a hypocrite.
You've no evidence for that being anywhere near the norm and look at the way authority has been undermined to the point of our society being ready to crumble!
I hope spoken to a number of person who lived during that time and they tell me this was fairly typical.
Yes, you yourself are a hypocrite because your beliefs are not any more valid than mine are, you just claim they are.
I choose to do no harm. You support a system that will harm. I think that makes my morality higher than yours, but that's just my opinion. You are welcome to yours.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) Why would you continue to promote illicit sex when it is proven to result in so many problems for society? Abortions, teen preggies, kids raised without parents, delinquency run rampant, welfare subjegating people to the state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>ll those things are more prevalent in America than in Scandinavian countries, where sex is more open and accepted, and thus the kids are far less obsessed with it. The more you clamp down, the more enticing sex becomes to your children.
That is deliberate, liberal context twisting (comparing apples to oranges) MISINFORMATION. You believe this is true because this is what you have been told.
No, it's because I have seen studies. This is not misinformation at all, as you would find out if you looked around you. Everything I said is true.
>nstead, teach them responsbile but loving ideas about sex, don't condemn someting so natural, and watch the abortion rate drop, the pregnancy rate drop, the deliquency rate drop. It happens, just look at other countries. Your Christian obsession with sex dooms your children to be messed up.
Cite the examples please, cite the context please. You are just using ACLU style rhetoric.
It's the Web, man! Use a search engine, educate yourself, and come back to us when you know more about how the world actually is, instead of the way you need it to be to back your beliefs.

No Moral Absolutes?

Share this