Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is an opinion that murder, rape, theft, assault, etc. are wrong as well.
But it is an opinion that is universally held by every society in the history of the world, which makes it what our founders called "self evident". Morality is self evident. Everybody viscerally understands what it is that hurts other people, because it doesn't take very long for a culture to observe the social effect of disregarding the well-being of fellow citizens.
All of the things you cited are behaviors that inflict immediate and visible harm or distress to another person, which is what I keep saying over and over again is what defines morality, and distinguishes it from dogmatic social regulations.
You (and others) were discussing how these "absolutes" somehow differ from "other" morals.
They come from the same ideals and they are not really that different.
It is completely subjective. What these "natural rights" are are also subjective.
So you think that a natural right to survival is subjective? Put it to the test when a thief in the middle of the night approaches you with a knife then let me know how subjective that is.
Ideals? which ideals? However, you may call them ideals if you want to. Others may call them moral principles, others natural rights, others may call it what they want but in the end they are absolute because universally we all share them without any need of religion. They are the root of many standards of behavior and these natural rights are not relative to any feeling of view. They are in us. Animals have it too and they do not have to wonder about them whether God or you or I agree with that. We humans share some of those principles with animals.
They do differ from the "ideal" of some not agreeing with a 13 year old to have sex because some groups and/or societies see not problem with that. It seem that God may not mind because he allows women to menstruate at such young ages. Maybe he says they are ready phycially ready to keep the human race going. If there is not God, maybe then nature also designes them to be able to menstruate at such young age. From either way you want to see it, the hint from God and/or nature and that is not wrong for a woman that young to have sex.
But just now I thought of something. Do you think that we humans just suddenly wake up and say "I think it is wrong if someone comes and kills me". At that point just developed that opinion? He did not have to wait for that conclusion. As soon as he sees someone threatening to kill him, he is not there wondering if that is right or wrong. He will protect that life. As a matter of fact he does not have to wait to be thought to protect his life. If he sees a threat to it, he will react. Does he need to have an opinon? Does an animal reason if another animal is approaching it? No, it has that instict for survival just as we do. I do not think it needs an opinion to protect inself.
You have a great day.
El Amigo
What you described is our survival instinct, which is an aversion to death. It does not speak about killing. One could argue that since sometimes we feel the urge to attack someone when we are angry, that it is morally acceptable. Animals kill each other all of the time, so obviously it is in their instinct to kill occasionally.
Human society suppresses many of our animalistic urges, especially regarding sexuality and murder/assault. Is it morally acceptable to listen to my sexual instinct which tells me I should have sex with every attractive woman to spread my seed, irregardless if she agrees or not?
You are barking up an interesting tree if you declare human/animal instincts as absolute morality.
What you described is our survival instinct, which is an aversion to death. It does not speak about killing. One could argue that since sometimes we feel the urge to attack someone when we are angry, that it is morally acceptable. Animals kill each other all of the time, so obviously it is in their instinct to kill occasionally.
Human society suppresses many of our animalistic urges, especially regarding sexuality and murder/assault. Is it morally acceptable to listen to my sexual instinct which tells me I should have sex with every attractive woman to spread my seed, irregardless if she agrees or not?
You are barking up an interesting tree if you declare human/animal instincts as absolute morality.
I already addressed the difference between murder and killing. I won't go that route again. I can't explain it more than what I already did.
Why ask the question about having sex with a woman you may want to have? I just do not know why you ask it because I explained along our universal rights that would cover that point. I just have not idea why you ask that question. Maybe please tell me what I wrote to lead you to ask that question.
I also explained how those those survival instainct exist in all of us living creatures whether it is animals and humans. I also explained that some of the moral absolutes have natural rights as their roots. Which other way can I explain that? I do not know. Other moral values do not have that origin and tend to be relative like, again, a 13 year old woman having sex. That type of value can be relative.
I already addressed the difference between murder and killing. I won't go that route again. I can't explain it more than what I already did.
Why ask the question about having sex with a woman you may want to have? I just do not know why you ask it because I explained along our universal rights that would cover that point. I just have not idea why you ask that question. Maybe please tell me what I wrote to lead you to ask that question.
I also explained how those those survival instainct exist in all of us living creatures whether it is animals and humans. I also explained that some of the moral absolutes have natural rights as their roots. Which other way can I explain that? I do not know. Other moral values do not have that origin and tend to be relative like, again, a 13 year old woman having sex. That type of value can be relative.
You have a great day.
El Amigo
First, let's not get into an issue of semantics regarding murder/kill, it is irrelevant to the argument of moral subjectivity.
You argued that since we have a survival instinct, that surviving should be an absolute moral. Okay. So if someone dies, they would be immoral?
Surviving and aggression are two different things. Humans and animals alike have aggressive instincts, that does not mean any form of aggression is an absolute moral.
My post was to illustrate how you were being 'subjective' in which instincts were the reasoning for them being an absolute moral. Don't use instincts as reasoning behind absolute morality if you are going to reject other instincts. You are merely exhibiting 'subjectivity'.
Morally, you can have sex with any woman (or man) who is hot harmed or distressed by the event, limited by any binding contract you may have in place with another person that proscribes such behavior. I stand by my definition of moral: That which does not unnecessarily harm or distress another person. Betraying a trust distresses a person, and is therefore immoral.
First, let's not get into an issue of semantics regarding murder/kill, it is irrelevant to the argument of moral subjectivity.
You argued that since we have a survival instinct, that surviving should be an absolute moral. Okay. So if someone dies, they would be immoral?
Surviving and aggression are two different things. Humans and animals alike have aggressive instincts, that does not mean any form of aggression is an absolute moral.
My post was to illustrate how you were being 'subjective' in which instincts were the reasoning for them being an absolute moral. Don't use instincts as reasoning behind absolute morality if you are going to reject other instincts. You are merely exhibiting 'subjectivity'.
Did I ever write that agression should be an absolute moral? No, I did not. I simply said that that a moral view against murder has its root from a simple survival instinct we all have. As time passed either some priests or some ruler simply put it in writing the respect for life. I do not know how simpler I can make that. You put words in my mouth so to speak.
What does agression has to do with an absolute value. Did I ever bring agression as an instinct as something we have labeled as a moral principle having its root from natural instincts? However, since you brough it up, we are all capable of agression. However, is agression always necessary to stay alive? Not really. I could be smart enough to survive a threat to my life by simple verbal skills, correct? Many have done that.
I have never seen people advocating agression all the time as advocating protecting life. I never advocated agression as an absolute moral.
I was not being subjective when when I said that natural instinct as the root of some moral absolute. I simply stated a fact. I would be subjective if I say sex at 13 is not morally right because I may base it on some religious view, a social norm, or some ethical issue or something else. At most I may agree to entertain if you had said that I am misinterpreting natural instincts equating them with absolute morals.
Again, I simply looked at history and physical human realities and correlate them as cause and effect. Am I wrong? Tell me how. However, that is not being subjective. Being subjective means according to one dictionary as "relating to, or arising within one's self or mind in contrast to what is outside: PERSONAL"
Looking at historical facts and looking at human instincts and seeing how they relate is not being subjective. However, telling me that the law should not exist to forbid sex at 13 for the good of society is subjecitve for different reasons whether they may be religioius or some other reason. It has no factual reason in nature as to why that should not happen.
Question: Do you agree that murder is something universally people would protect from? Is so, we are getting somewhere.
The next question is, do you agree that murder is universally accepted as immoral? If so, then murder is an absolute value.
Lastly, I do not think you have any authority or power over me to tell me what to use and what not to use, do you?
Also, clarify your point when you said some instincts could be absolute values and others don't. Could you expand? I can the tell if I agree or not. I do not see it as all or nothing when comparing instincts.
Morally, you can have sex with any woman (or man who is hot harmed or distressed by the event, limited by any binding contract you may have in place with another person that proscribes such behavior. I stand by my definition of moral: That which does not unnecessarily harm or distress another person. Betraying a trust distresses a peson, and is therefore immoral.
What does this comment is saying? It may be immoral from the standpoint of cheating on a wife. Why? because of the dishonesty part. Why the comment though. Did I or somebody say it is not? I do not recall saying it is not.
There are in some cases when people have been exonerated by religious and legal angles when having sex outside the marriage. Why? Because this moral issue is based on religious or some societal norm. There are places in this world where having affair is accepted. Actuall there have been women that actually would not mind a spouse to have someone else. Example: A wife telling her husband to have sex with somebody else when they cannot have sex due to pregnancy. Do I agree with that? No but there are those that do. I have heard other reasons where spouses have condoned such activity. Not that they wish it to happen but at the same time evaluating circumstances and accepting such situation. That is why laws now have changed when it comes to adultery when in yesteryears the laws were more heavily influenced by religious minds than today.
What does this comment is saying? It may be immoral from the standpoint of cheating on a wife. Why? because of the dishonesty part. Why the comment though. Did I or somebody say it is not? I do not recall saying it is not.
My copmment was a response to Rick Mahorn, and addressed his irregardless rider: I added the marital contract, since it is essential here to cover every base, because people will pick pick pick at you for every omission from your explanation. :
Is it morally acceptable to listen to my sexual instinct which tells me I should have sex with every attractive woman to spread my seed, irregardless if she agrees or not?
Did I ever write that agression should be an absolute moral? No, I did not. I simply said that that a moral view against murder has its root from a simple survival instinct we all have. As time passed either some priests or some ruler simply put it in writing the respect for life. I do not know how simpler I can make that. You put words in my mouth so to speak.
What does agression has to do with an absolute value. Did I ever bring agression as an instinct as something we have labeled as a moral principle having its root from natural instincts? However, since you brough it up, we are all capable of agression. However, is agression always necessary to stay alive? Not really. I could be smart enough to survive a threat to my life by simple verbal skills, correct? Many have done that.
I have never seen people advocating agression all the time as advocating protecting life. I never advocated agression as an absolute moral.
I was not being subjective when when I said that natural instinct as the root of some moral absolute. I simply stated a fact. I would be subjective if I say sex at 13 is not morally right because I may base it on some religious view, a social norm, or some ethical issue or something else. At most I may agree to entertain if you had said that I am misinterpreting natural instincts equating them with absolute morals.
Again, I simply looked at history and physical human realities and correlate them as cause and effect. Am I wrong? Tell me how. However, that is not being subjective. Being subjective means according to one dictionary as "relating to, or arising within one's self or mind in contrast to what is outside: PERSONAL"
Looking at historical facts and looking at human instincts and seeing how they relate is not being subjective. However, telling me that the law should not exist to forbid sex at 13 for the good of society is subjecitve for different reasons whether they may be religioius or some other reason. It has no factual reason in nature as to why that should not happen.
Question: Do you agree that murder is something universally people would protect from? Is so, we are getting somewhere.
The next question is, do you agree that murder is universally accepted as immoral? If so, then murder is an absolute value.
Lastly, I do not think you have any authority or power over me to tell me what to use and what not to use, do you?
Also, clarify your point when you said some instincts could be absolute values and others don't. Could you expand? I can the tell if I agree or not. I do not see it as all or nothing when comparing instincts.
YOu have a great day.
El Amigo
Okay. Wow. You clearly did not understand my rhetoric, and I don't know if I can simplify my argument any further than I already have. I am going to try ONE more time to present this as simply as I can at the risk of being completely redundant:
Argument: If you use certain instincts as a basis for them being absolute morals, you can't reject other instincts as a basis for other morals as being absolute. If you do reject other instincts, then you are implicitly admitting that morality is subjective.
You have stated that our survival instinct is a basis for murder/killing(I put both here to avoid an impending semantics question) being considered an example of absolute immorality. Okay.
We also have sexual and aggressive instincts. Why can these not be used as basis for defining absolute morality, if the survival instinct can?
We have a sexual instinct, therefore if absolute morality has any basis in instincts, it would mean that the following is an absolute moral:
"My sexual instinct tells me I should have sex with every attractive woman to spread my seed, irregardless if she agrees or not. Therefore, it is absolutely moral for me to have sex anytime with anyone I like because it is driven by an instinct."
I have underlined my statement. I have put my ONE question to you in bold. All you need to do is answer the question in bold. Everything else is purely supporting rhetoric.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
