Tom Piper

free12thinker,

There is no real problem here, is there? If the sexual activity results in a deformed fetus and you don't want it, abort it.

Incidentally, is it your view that making deformed children is immoral?

Tom

[ April 30, 2002: Message edited by: Tom Piper ]</p>

tronvillain

While I am against incestuous relationships if they involve child abuse, I could care less otherwise. Yes, there is an increased risk of children with various abnormalities if the couple ever has children, but so what?

If someone justified the assertion "homosexuality is wrong" with "it is one of my basic moral principles" they would essentially be saying "homosexuality bothers me enough for me to say that other people shouldn't do it." Of course, this comes in degrees - many people might be bothered enough by homosexuality to desire its non-existence, but not enough to actually do anything about it.

99Percent

I am not a moral subjectivist but I think subjectivism is a matter of assigning values to different things and acting according to what you value most. For example killing is wrong because you value more the life of a human than the pleasure of killing, or the material benefit you might derive from such a murder.

What I find objectionable to this kind of morality is that values can and will change so there is no real basis or even moral responsibility.

For example, I value person X more than the pleasure of killing him but not I do not value the life of person Y at all, so I will instead go ahead and enjoy killing person Y.

SmashingIdols

I am really confused here. Feeling a bit illiterate. What is subjective morality?

Please don't tell me "All morality is subjective without an absolute morality, meaning the word of God."

(The old absolute truth argument).

free12thinker

Well that depends. Are the children deformed as a direct result of something you did (besides the act of sex in itself). Are they deformed because you abused drugs or alcohol. Are they deformed as a result of the incest? Then yes, I feel they are immoral. Here's a quote to latch onto.

The only acts which are immoral are those which negatively impact others, beliefs aside.

This means homosexuality, casual sex, prostitution, and gambling are not. Cause although they may have negative impacts if abused (gambling addiction could ruin a family), the acts in themselves do not have a negative impact on anyone outside of those who partake in them. In this, we cannot automatically equate homosexuality to AIDS and a lack of longevity. We cannot equate gambling to addiction and broekn homes. It's not fair to those who wouldn't abuse the system. And just to move back two sentences, even if homosexuality yielded a 99% failure rate in the field of logevity, who cares? We're not here to protect social standards in the matters of family and relationships, nor should we be.

Incest, as noted by doctors across all religious, non-religious, political and non-political boards have agreed on the high chances of yielding a deformed child through incest. With these chances, should come consideration and responsibility for the negative impact that their actions would have on the unborn child. And while no pregnancy (incest or not) is ever completely free of complications, incest is a match to the potential fire. The same has been said about cloning, for which I tend to agree. If the chances of yielding a sick or deformed child by cloning is higher than the arbitrary risk of a deformed or sick child by natural means, than I find it immoral for that reason alone.

Abortion is an incredibly important option for this reason alone. Let the would-be sick stay unborn, and they will never suffer. Let the unwanted child stay unborn, as they will not be negatively impacted.

It's as simple as that. But we are selfish for wanting to control the wishes and desires of others, as they do not directly pertain to us.

[ April 30, 2002: Message edited by: free12thinker ]</p>

free12thinker

A moral principle I have? Do not do anything that negatively impacts others, beliefs aside. What I mean by the "beliefs aside" part is, we shouldn't worry about what people object to because they believe its wrong, but we should worry about things that have direct effects on others in a negative light. Things that halt progression of a particular person or group of peoples life. But it has to work both ways.

For example, some argue that homosexuality halts the progression of the human race because for every homosexual/lesbian, there are two fewer people to pro-create. Well, we are not here to pro-create. We are here to live life, in a manner satisfactory to us, so long as others can live life as is satisfactory to them. It's a two way street. But if Karl's lifestyle angers Shane, but Shane cannot prove that Karl's lifestyle has directly intruded on Shanes progression in life, than Shane can "believe" Karl is immoral all he wants, but life is still going on for the both of them. See how this works?

Some examples of moral principles I hold? Murder is wrong. Not allowing for same-sex marriages is wrong. Theft is wrong. Cocaine and other drugs that are dangerous to society when consumed. Marijuanna is not wrong. Smoking in the presence of non-smokers is wrong. Why? Say it with me.

They negatively impact someone else.

ju'iblex

each person defining what their own morals are as opposed to objective, one defining force &lt;ie. Bible&gt; declaring what is right and wrong.

better definitions will come from elsewhere however.

SmashingIdols

But that's not morality (A), and the Bible is not the Defining Force of Morality (B).

Morality is society's values. Society writes the moral code, and always has. Defining Force = Society.

They are put into religion, with puppets (like in the wizard of oz being driven behind curtains by men) enforcing them with fear, but we all know that there is no God. Just like Santa - it was mom and dad that put the gifts under the tree. God didn't write religion - society did. There really is no God - take it seriously. So what we are left with is the work of man - in totality.

The morality taught by religion is Society’s Morality. Like most of the material dressed up as religion it was put there to insure the success of the society. Religion and the moral codes encapsulated therein evolved even as we evolved - you know, TBW (we need Dawkin's to cover religion next).

It was made to fulfill a function; and one such function was to teach and enforce societal values - for the good of the tribe.

My original post on this thread was quite sincere - in Western civilization homosexuality cannot be called immoral (by anybody other than someone adhering to primitive societal values) because it is an accepted sexual preference by society at large.

If you go to a fundamentally Islamic country, it is immoral, and you could be put to death for it.

My last post was about Joe – who is immoral because our definition in the west of immorality has evolved as follows: it is not your sexual preference that defines you as sexually moral but your fidelity and honesty! Once again, the mission of the morality in this case is to protect society – he is exposing both of his partners to a risk that they deserve to know. Our morality has adjusted accordingly (unless we are watching the Old-time Gospel Hour).

Without God moral code does not disappear – it just becomes a clear tool of human survival. It may have even played a great role in our success as a species.

Maybe when our soceity grows up enough to kill God we can define moral code that works better towards its true mission. In any case, nobody but the most fundamentally religious would view the bible as the current authority on morality - here in the US we have an entire body of law, starting with the Constitution and ending ultimately with local law (I view the bible as one big ugly snake skin that was shed (by most) long ago). And even the judgement by society usually carries no other sentence than being shunned.

Just had to say this because defining new morality is akin to redefining the English language - it property of the society, not specific individuals.

Sorry for the rant…

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]</p>

tronvillain

99Percent:
In other words, we have to live without "real basis" or "moral responsibility" that are independent of our values and the values of others.

Looks like a perfectly rational decision, and I have yet to see you offer an argument against it which isn't ultimately subjective.

tronvillain

SmashingIdols:

That homosexuality is sexual preference tolerated by most of society does not prevent it from being called immoral. When you say that "society" does not consider homosexuality immoral, you are essentially saying that it doesn't bother most individuals that make up that society, but nothing prevents it from bothering the rest. Nothing prevents those other people from calling it immoral, but they are prevented from enforcing their morality by the rest of society.