U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-11-2013, 02:48 PM
bg7
 
7,697 posts, read 8,170,975 times
Reputation: 15093

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATTC View Post
And what arbitrary age can one understand the consequences of their action? There are minors who especially because of their exposure to television and pornography know fully well about sex. And with people like Planned Parenthood and UNESCO trying to teach kids as young as 6 years old how to masturbate, who are you to say they have no knowledge?

And again animals in the animal kingdom take advantage of other young animals all the time. What basis do you have for saying that two people can't

Now obviously I have a point of view that it's appalling to take advantage of young children. But if you believe right and wrong are arbitrary criteria determined by your own intuition, who are you to say that others should be held to the standard of your personal intuition? An intuition that is only derived from arbitrary chemical reactions in your brain.
Why would you "obviously" have that point of view when your own morality is likely borrowed from a book which glamorizes, among other things, genocide, revenge, wrath and child sacrifice? Or perhpas you don't favor the Bible, perhaps its another flawed-but-well-intentioned old guidebook.

Equal rights for oppressed groups, women's rights, animal rights and compassion, all our great recent advancements in civilization - where did they come from? From well-reasoned thought.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-12-2013, 02:05 AM
Status: "Second Year School Teacher" (set 1 day ago)
 
Location: Shreveport, LA
1,309 posts, read 987,934 times
Reputation: 630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles View Post
I don't know if I am a bigot.

I don't believe in morals. I ignore them. Morals a are wishy washy opinions that are irrelevant.

I make decisions and create and enforce rules based on tangible outcomes: health, finances, safety, happiness, freedom, etc.

If there was no risk of STD or financially irresponsible pregnancies or "hurt feelings" (or other tangible things I can't think of at the moment) then I wouldn't care if teenagers had sex at 14. And, I guess that logic would apply to pedophilia even though I've been conditioned to imagine that is repulsive and disgusting.

As long as nobody is hurt, anything goes.
Interesting…

I thought I was the only one that questioned the basis for morals. Philosophy looks like something I would be a natural at…
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2013, 10:52 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia
1,166 posts, read 1,255,988 times
Reputation: 442
There are no objective morals, so there isn't anything inherently immoral about 80-year-old men raping babies. However, given the function of a society, this behavior is not conducive, and therefore I do not condone it under those given circumstances.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2013, 12:01 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,281,369 times
Reputation: 36087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnote11 View Post
There are no objective morals, so there isn't anything inherently immoral about 80-year-old men raping babies. However, given the function of a society, this behavior is not conducive, and therefore I do not condone it under those given circumstances.
There are "objective morals", but the objectivity of those morals is predicated on the well-being of the species that has woven this network of morals in its own interests.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2013, 03:54 PM
 
Location: Michigan
12,715 posts, read 11,610,075 times
Reputation: 4140
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
There are "objective morals", but the objectivity of those morals is predicated on the well-being of the species that has woven this network of morals in its own interests.
There's at least some element of subjectivity in the concept of "well-being." For instance, a person may belong to a religious tradition that holds that a female's highest calling is to be a barefoot, pregnant domestic servant. I don't hold that view myself; but I know of no way to prove it is simply wrong the way you could prove that 2+2=/=5.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2013, 09:06 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia
1,166 posts, read 1,255,988 times
Reputation: 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
There are "objective morals", but the objectivity of those morals is predicated on the well-being of the species that has woven this network of morals in its own interests.
Morals are contingent upon specific conditions, and therefore there are no objective morals across time and none that hold up as absolutes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2013, 09:17 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,281,369 times
Reputation: 36087
Quote:
Originally Posted by djacques View Post
There's at least some element of subjectivity in the concept of "well-being." For instance, a person may belong to a religious tradition that holds that a female's highest calling is to be a barefoot, pregnant domestic servant. I don't hold that view myself; but I know of no way to prove it is simply wrong the way you could prove that 2+2=/=5.
"Well-being" in any species self-selects. If a group of people fail to achieve well-being, they make adjustments in order to improve their chances. As in, This doesn't work, try something else. If humans were unable to do the necessary fine-tuning to the structuring and organization of their society, they would have gone extinct. Different groups in different parts of the world try different strategies, according to the local conditions.

If people started to behave in a way that was so "immoral" that survival was impaired, they would either repair their behavior, or die out. Of course, there are a lot of gray areas, where not everyone agrees on what immorality is potentially destructive to well-being, and that is where the "subjectivity" comes in.

Last edited by jtur88; 06-16-2013 at 09:39 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2013, 10:08 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia
1,166 posts, read 1,255,988 times
Reputation: 442
One could argue that modern human society is not necessary to the survival of the human species, so the morals that arise out of them are erroneous where survival is concerned. There surely are morals that do not spring out of need-to-survive, and on the basis of the survival argument, one makes the case for moral relativism and non-absolute morals stronger. One could not say that murder is absolutely immoral, since one can conceive of and provide historical examples of situations where murder was necessary for survival, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2013, 07:18 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,281,369 times
Reputation: 36087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnote11 View Post
One could not say that murder is absolutely immoral, since one can conceive of and provide historical examples of situations where murder was necessary for survival, etc.
Which is exactly why moralists subdivide the killing of human beings into different categories, some of which are moral and others are not. In fact, we even say "That's not murder" when confronted with certain "moral" killing that suits the purposes of the arbiters of morality.

Black and white definitions are anathema to those who cherish their authority to impose their moral decisions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2013, 09:05 PM
 
354 posts, read 245,886 times
Reputation: 105
Quote:
What Is the Basis of Moral Objection to Pedophilia By Atheists?
The basis for "moral objection" is basically the same for everyone, theist or atheist. Culture. We can expand culture to mean; the social environment that informs our behavior. Strip away this programming and we wouldn't be animals who considered morals to any great degree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top