Is morality and virtue situational? (points, morals, humans, society)

[Weatherfan7]

Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST

If you have no data suggesting that having sex for pleasure is harmful to the human animal, then you really don't have much of a verifiable moral argument. All you have is, "Someone told me it's wrong, therefore I believe it is".

Nobody "told me" anything, it is something I believe from my own studies of human nature, spiritual research - much of which I have chosen whether I believe or not - based on how it tested in reality - myself and others' lives, the principles of karma (cause and effect), and now you want scientific data? Even if there was such data you would still not believe it and would just find ways to poke holes in my beliefs. Go ahead, because I do not care. I live in a way that is consistent with my beliefs and I do not expect you to nor am I saying you should do.

I am the last person to think something because somebody "told me", quite the opposite. Most of society, overwhelmingly, disagrees with my strict views on morality. If I was a herd following sponge soaking up everything everybody said, I would fit in very well with society, and I do not. My views on what is moral or not, are based on what consequences I see from these things, from a spiritual perspective.

As previously said, all I can do is state what actions and thoughts I perceive to be moral or not, in anyone, and give examples of them. I am perfectly happy for you to disagree. The argument that only true morality comes from the purity of genuine love, in ANY situation is not to be dismissed.

[NOTaTHEIST]

A lot to focus on, and it's almost time for my workout (I don't take pleasure from it)

Nobody "told me" anything, it is something I believe from my own studies of
human nature, spiritual research

Your beliefs, your morality, is an informed state of mind. Whether someone or something (a book say) informed you of this belief is irrelevant to the fact that what you believe is the result of environmental exposure. I'd be very surprised if you came to this belief without some type of religious indoctrination, because this is generally where puritanical ideas (sex for pleasure is immoral) arise. And I have no idea what "spiritual research" means, other than you might be referring to reading one religious text or another.

based on how it tested in reality - myself and others' lives, the principles of karma (cause and effect), and now you want scientific data?

Before I believe any assertion (in this case, sex just for pleasure is always harmful), yes, I need strong data to suggest it is. Otherwise, your moral position on the subject is just as relative as any other. Something I'll get to in my next post will be to present the idea that "sex only for procreation" is probably much more harmful for the long-term survival of our species than "sex just for pleasure".

Even if there was such data you would still not believe it and would just find ways to poke holes in my beliefs.

I might be still be skeptical about the data, but I'd certainly acknowledge its existence. Beliefs should always be poked full of holes, both mine and yours. It's how we learn and improve the human condition.

I am the last person to think something because somebody "told me", quite the opposite. Most of society, overwhelmingly, disagrees with my strict views on morality. If I was a herd following sponge soaking up everything everybody said, I would fit in very well with society, and I do not. My views on what is moral or not, are based on what consequences I see from these things, from a spiritual perspective.

Again, we all think/believe things because of our environmental exposure. Something is informing you of these, what you consider, atypical beliefs. I'm trying to determine why you believe these things and what exactly that information delivery method is. You claim some of it is observation. That's good. However, unless you collect lots of observations from many varied sources, individual observation holds very minimal import in determining how probable a proposition is.

And I'd still like to determine where you're getting this "spiritual perspective".

As previously said, all I can do is state what actions and thoughts I perceive to be moral or not, in anyone, and give examples of them. I am perfectly happy for you to disagree.

Then we both seem to understand that morals are relative to the individual, and often to a lesser or greater degree their culture/society at large. And why is this? Each individual has varied experiences and a slightly different biology.

The argument that only true morality comes from the purity of genuine love, in ANY situation is not to be dismissed.

I can dismiss this statement because you included the words "only true". I understand that human morals come from lots of different sources other than just "genuine love". For instance, most human moral systems are based upon reciprocity. I think you'd be hard pressed to show that reciprocity has little if anything to do with "genuine love". I do not believe there is "only one true" morality, or what might be considered an "absolute morality". Now, you may believe the only true morality arises from this, but it's demonstrably not true that all humans hold this belief. You could however argue that "genuine love" produces the best moral outcomes (definition needed), and we could then have an interesting discussion on that topic.


Please excuse any typos/grammatical errors as didn't have enough time to thoroughly proof this.

[Weatherfan7]

Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST

A lot to focus on, and it's almost time for my workout (I don't take pleasure from it)


Your beliefs, your morality, is an informed state of mind. Whether someone or something (a book say) informed you of this belief is irrelevant to the fact that what you believe is the result of environmental exposure. I'd be very surprised if you came to this belief without some type of religious indoctrination, because this is generally where puritanical ideas (sex for pleasure is immoral) arise. And I have no idea what "spiritual research" means, other than you might be referring to reading one religious text or another.

Well more like countless books, countless articles, and probably thousands of hours of researching. Most people probably wouldn't think I have much of a life by their definition. This has all been stimulated by a deepseated sense of intuition which I explain in response to other comments below.

I will argue that you are incorrect in asserting that I came to these beliefs down to religious indoctrination - by definition indocrination is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned. - which I can patently say in my case, is completely removed from reality - I spend most of my time critically examining and analyzing everything - including religious belief systems - I research, read, try to understand on morality, spirituality, etc.. Sometimes my views change from time to time and certain things I can just denounce as rubbish, but through much of my research many times the same truths (as I find them to be) just shine through time and time again, and then when they become self evident in my life or others' lives, I consider them to be true. This is far, far far from a blind process of indoctrination.

Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST

Before I believe any assertion (in this case, sex just for pleasure is always harmful), yes, I need strong data to suggest it is. Otherwise, your moral position on the subject is just as relative as any other. Something I'll get to in my next post will be to present the idea that "sex only for procreation" is probably much more harmful for the long-term survival of our species than "sex just for pleasure".

I understand this, however the problem of faith, spirituality and all beliefs based on such things, such as my views about sex for pleasure, are not something that can be measured or demonstrated in a scientific way. It's just the nature of it. That sounds like a lame cop-out but unless you have had the spiritual experiences or got deep into understandings of spiritual cause and effect then nobody can ever prove it to you. It's only the type of thing you can prove yourself by experiencing it.

Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST

Again, we all think/believe things because of our environmental exposure. Something is informing you of these, what you consider, atypical beliefs. I'm trying to determine why you believe these things and what exactly that information delivery method is. You claim some of it is observation. That's good. However, unless you collect lots of observations from many varied sources, individual observation holds very minimal import in determining how probable a proposition is.

I find this hard to address of course, because it is challenging, and at times the answer seems quite vague. For example, for some inexplicable reason, which I cannot explain, I have, well before I was researching this matter at all really, had a very strong feeling, or what I call "intuition" that I am somehow far more than my physical body, and when I first found (by accident or curiosity mostly) books in a library or encyclopedia entries about subjects like near death experiences, hauntings (in particular) and supernatural phenomena it is as if the connection suddenly formed and I realised that this related perfectly to my "intuition" or inner feelings that I couldn't previously explain. I have had an experience where I was outside of my body consciously before. But with this, also came a realisation that accepting a spiritual element or background to my existence, meant accepting the reality of negative and positive spiritual energy, and how our actions and thoughts modify the amounts of these, and how they relate to the purity of our spirit.

I could have just thought "this is all too complicated" and given up and denied the deep "intuition" I've always had inside and said "to hell with it, I will just make up my own mind what is right, wrong etc.. based on what most of society thinks" like most people do. But once I had "discovered" and explored this "intuition", "deep knowledge" of my spirit inside me (yes however silly it may sound) I simply could not deny it. It can't be done. For somebody who hasn't found that, I wouldn't expect you, therefore, to share my stance on morality or to follow those views or act by them and that's fine.

As for how I get my information, books, articles on the internet, mostly about subjects such as "spiritual enlightenment", "developing intuition", "christ discernment", I research and explore topics like this ad infinitum trying to discern truth from fiction and understand more about spirituality in general just because of my "background" in it and my interest in it.

Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST

And I'd still like to determine where you're getting this "spiritual perspective".

As awkward to an atheist as it may sound - it definitely comes from somewhere "bigger" than me, "bigger" than society, "bigger" even than any single religion. It comes from "inside" me somewhere, as unprovable as it sounds I think it comes from my spirit, I am intuitively aware I am a spiritual being in a physical body and that is how I regard myself. When I say somewhere "bigger" and "inside" me, I mean I think it is God able to communiate from inside me somewhere. Well that is how I interpret it. Sometimes I "listen" to it, sometimes I try to ignore it and do my own thing. But things have "consequences".

Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST

I can dismiss this statement because you included the words "only true". I understand that human morals come from lots of different sources other than just "genuine love". For instance, most human moral systems are based upon reciprocity. I think you'd be hard pressed to show that reciprocity has little if anything to do with "genuine love". I do not believe there is "only one true" morality, or what might be considered an "absolute morality". Now, you may believe the only true morality arises from this, but it's demonstrably not true that all humans hold this belief. You could however argue that "genuine love" produces the best moral outcomes (definition needed), and we could then have an interesting discussion on that topic.

Well I would say that your last sentence is correct, that only genuine love produces the best moral outcomes. I may have been too black and white then, and the reality of it is not totally black and white. There are "grey areas". The thing is, you can have a certain "level" of morality, which I equate with purity, in a situation where there is not 100% true love, but my belief system is such that morality = purity = unconditional love. I could be wrong. You say it is "relative morality". I believe morality to be universal in general because it is spiritual nature and we are all spiritual beings. If you don't believe we are spiritual beings and therefore it is not true, I have no problem with that.

[NOTaTHEIST]

First of all, I'd like to say this has been an enjoyable conversation and I hope it can remain that way I'm going to jump around here a bit, so hopefully you'll be able to follow me.

On to where your moral values come from...
Please correct me if I'm wrong, and I did read everything you wrote in response to my dogged questioning, but you're basically claiming your personal morality is based mostly on feelings and intuitions? That's a perfectly understandable way to build a morality, but I worry that your "research" (what's informing your feelings and intuitions) might be biased somewhat by a lack of diversity. I'm sure mine is somewhat as well. We all tend to get ideas and stick with them, especially if those ideas are emotionally satisfying.

Originally Posted by Weatherfan7

You say it is "relative morality".

I say morality IS relative. You may however believe yours is not. But like it or not, when you compare your morality to another person's morality, you will almost certainly find differences. You will also find differences in time (for instance, slavery was once considered moral by some... and still may be today) and between cultures. That's where the relativity comes in.

I believe morality to be universal in general because it is spiritual nature and we are all spiritual beings. If you don't believe we are spiritual beings and therefore it is not true, I have no problem with that.

You would have to define what "spiritual" is in a way that I could understand it. Frankly, I'm at a loss to understand what this thing is that many humans claim we have; spirituality. Knowing my position on this should cause you to understand that at this point, I can not consider morals to be in anyway a product of spirituality, because I simply don't know what that is. This may be an insurmountable gulf we can not cross. In fact, I consider morals to be the result of physical forces, just like everything else in what appears to be a purely material reality.

I could be wrong.

As can I. This is a great starting point for any discussion or idea.

Well I would say that your last sentence is correct, that only genuine love produces the best moral outcomes.

Now here's a point that we can probably discuss in terms we can both understand. I'm going to rewrite the second half of that sentence and see if you can agree with it.

Morality based upon empathy will probably produce better moral outcomes.

I should probably define from my perspective what a better moral outcome is; A better moral outcome would be a situation that would result in more happiness and less suffering. This idea is not necessarily confined to just the human animal, and could be highly expanded upon.

Notice my lack of anything absolute, where you use words like "only" and "best". As you've noticed, I've also replace the word love with empathy. This might seem like a subtle distinction, but I want it understood I mean caring and compassion for others. The word "love" has many uses in our nomenclature that don't always include these ideas.

As I've already stated, most human morality seems to be based upon our reciprocal nature. While I do not necessarily agree a moral system based upon reciprocity is even a good starting point, it is what is. However, if we could some how blend or even convert our typically reciprocal morals with a system based upon caring and compassion for others, it would "probably" become a "better" system by producing better outcomes (defined in bold). I will admit here this makes intuitive sense to me, but I've left it open ended because I understand "I could be wrong" and that under certain circumstances a reciprocal, an empathic, or perhaps even some other system we haven't conceived of, could produce better outcomes.

Whew, this stuff is deep.

...

Ok, back to what I promised in my last post. I'll quote it again.

Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST

Something I'll get to in my next post will be to present the idea that "sex only for procreation" is probably much more harmful for the long-term survival of our species than "sex just for pleasure".

This sort of brings it back around to where we started the conversation. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong about what you believe.

Your morals are informing you that it is immoral for humans to engage in sex for pleasure WITHOUT the intent to procreate. Correct? I'll also add, you believe it is immoral to engage in sex just for pleasure? An odd thought just occurred to me, might you also believe it's immoral to take pleasure from sex... period? I know some religious/spiritual people feel this way, but I digress.

I think we can both agree that the human race would probably not exist if sex was not pleasurable. In fact, this seems to be a constant throughout the animal kingdom. Nature instills in us, and all animals, a very strong and primal urge for sex. This makes great sense from a biological standpoint, and I'm not sure if you'll have problem with me saying this, an evolutionary standpoint.

We are basically driven by instinct to have sex. I'm not sure how this came about, but we are probably the only animal who inhibits this drive to any great extent, and we do that for various reasons; some perhaps good, some perhaps bad.

Here we sit in a world where I would estimate the largest percentage of humans engage in sex mostly for pleasure(probably greater than 99 percent) and rarely for intentional procreation (probably less than 1 percent). Why do you think I believe that's a morally positive thing? Let's think about what I just wrote. Imagine a world where we were only allowed sex to procreate. Remember our intense primal drive to have sex. Now imagine a world with 20 billion humans, or more. Imagine how fast our resources would be depleted. Imagine the horrible pain and suffering such a situation would lead too.

This is the world where restricting humans to sex for procreation only would PROBABLY lead. Or it might lead to a world were we had to repress our natural propensity for sex to the point it would also cause a very large degree of suffering.

Think I've been on the soapbox long enough. I'll hop off and let you respond.

[Weatherfan7]

Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST

First of all, I'd like to say this has been an enjoyable conversation and I hope it can remain that way I'm going to jump around here a bit, so hopefully you'll be able to follow me.

On to where your moral values come from...
Please correct me if I'm wrong, and I did read everything you wrote in response to my dogged questioning, but you're basically claiming your personal morality is based mostly on feelings and intuitions? That's a perfectly understandable way to build a morality, but I worry that your "research" (what's informing your feelings and intuitions) might be biased somewhat by a lack of diversity. I'm sure mine is somewhat as well. We all tend to get ideas and stick with them, especially if those ideas are emotionally satisfying.

I wouldn't sway "mostly" based on feelings and intuitions. I said a strong intuition was the starting point of a lot of my interest in the matter. But it's really the "confirmation" I have had in what I believe, that I have had in real life situations and events. And I could hardly describe how diverse my research is really, it's taken up most of my whole life, and often left me quite confused, but the bits that I "hang onto" are those which tend to bear out as being "self evident" in my life and others' lives.

Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST

I say morality IS relative. You may however believe yours is not. But like it or not, when you compare your morality to another person's morality, you will almost certainly find differences. You will also find differences in time (for instance, slavery was once considered moral by some... and still may be today) and between cultures. That's where the relativity comes in.

I get you, however the issue here is I would consider many things they think are moral in their sense of morality as being immoral. Only due to what my experiences and research and everything else has directed me to believe. I will not hold higher standards to others than I am prepared to hold to myself, however.

Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST

You would have to define what "spiritual" is in a way that I could understand it. Frankly, I'm at a loss to understand what this thing is that many humans claim we have; spirituality. Knowing my position on this should cause you to understand that at this point, I can not consider morals to be in anyway a product of spirituality, because I simply don't know what that is. This may be an insurmountable gulf we can not cross. In fact, I consider morals to be the result of physical forces, just like everything else in what appears to be a purely material reality.

It may be an insurmountable gulf and I can't convince anybody either way about spirituality. Just that I and many others, even totally outside of religions dogma and brainwashing, have a strong sense of spiritual belonging, and that's where everything else I've learned "flows" from. I don't think there's any good way to describe this to somebody who hasn't experienced that.

Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST

Now here's a point that we can probably discuss in terms we can both understand. I'm going to rewrite the second half of that sentence and see if you can agree with it.

Morality based upon empathy will probably produce better moral outcomes.

I should probably define from my perspective what a better moral outcome is; A better moral outcome would be a situation that would result in more happiness and less suffering. This idea is not necessarily confined to just the human animal, and could be highly expanded upon.

Notice my lack of anything absolute, where you use words like "only" and "best". As you've noticed, I've also replace the word love with empathy. This might seem like a subtle distinction, but I want it understood I mean caring and compassion for others. The word "love" has many uses in our nomenclature that don't always include these ideas.

Genuine love encompasses many things, compassion and empathy (understanding) are both products of this unconditional love in my beliefs based on everything I've mentioned previously. I think the issue here is that many people don't get what is meant by genuine spiritual love. Often imagining it be some kind of happy clappy airy fairy romantic thing but it's nothing like that. Genuinely positive emotions which nurture and do not destroy are all products of this unconditional love and empathy and particularly compassion are both products of it.

Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST

...

Ok, back to what I promised in my last post. I'll quote it again.


This sort of brings it back around to where we started the conversation. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong about what you believe.

Your morals are informing you that it is immoral for humans to engage in sex for pleasure WITHOUT the intent to procreate. Correct? I'll also add, you believe it is immoral to engage in sex just for pleasure? An odd thought just occurred to me, might you also believe it's immoral to take pleasure from sex... period? I know some religious/spiritual people feel this way, but I digress.

I think we can both agree that the human race would probably not exist if sex was not pleasurable. In fact, this seems to be a constant throughout the animal kingdom. Nature instills in us, and all animals, a very strong and primal urge for sex. This makes great sense from a biological standpoint, and I'm not sure if you'll have problem with me saying this, an evolutionary standpoint.

We are basically driven by instinct to have sex. I'm not sure how this came about, but we are probably the only animal who inhibits this drive to any great extent, and we do that for various reasons; some perhaps good, some perhaps bad.

Here we sit in a world where I would estimate the largest percentage of humans engage in sex mostly for pleasure(probably greater than 99 percent) and rarely for intentional procreation (probably less than 1 percent). Why do you think I believe that's a morally positive thing? Let's think about what I just wrote. Imagine a world where we were only allowed sex to procreate. Remember our intense primal drive to have sex. Now imagine a world with 20 billion humans, or more. Imagine how fast our resources would be depleted. Imagine the horrible pain and suffering such a situation would lead too.

This is the world where restricting humans to sex for procreation only would PROBABLY lead. Or it might lead to a world were we had to repress our natural propensity for sex to the point it would also cause a very large degree of suffering.

Think I've been on the soapbox long enough. I'll hop off and let you respond.

That is assuming that people were to be having sex at the kind of rate they do currently for pleasure. I am thinking more along the lines that as more "spiritually fulfilled" or focused people, our need for any kind of sex would be very low, as it is unnecessary for the soul, and the driver for having sex would be if one wanted to have a child. Otherwise, no sex. Spirituality in my mind is about developing above and beyond, away from the animal instinct part of our nature which is not our true nature (if you believe in spirituality). Admittedly that does sound very harsh and for most people conditioned in this society it probably is. However as said before you can consider it complete nonsense and I will not take offense. Just as long as I am a man of my word and live by what I say I am being honest about it.

[purehuman]

Originally Posted by Weatherfan7

That is assuming that people were to be having sex at the kind of rate they do currently for pleasure. I am thinking more along the lines that as more "spiritually fulfilled" or focused people, our need for any kind of sex would be very low, as it is unnecessary for the soul, and the driver for having sex would be if one wanted to have a child. Otherwise, no sex. Spirituality in my mind is about developing above and beyond, away from the animal instinct part of our nature which is not our true nature (if you believe in spirituality). Admittedly that does sound very harsh and for most people conditioned in this society it probably is. However as said before you can consider it complete nonsense and I will not take offense. Just as long as I am a man of my word and live by what I say I am being honest about it.

You are basically passing moral judgement on others simply because they enjoy sex. If you don't enjoy sex, and feel it should only be for procreation, that's your choice. Your choice to abstain does not in any way make you more "spiritually fulfilled" or more "focused" than the next person. The amount of sex one has is not the deciding factor that denotes morality or immorality...you can only know what is good for YOUR soul...not others. For you to judge others as immoral because they behave and act differently than you... is immoral...What you say is obviously what you believe, and I don't think it's nonsense at all,.... I appreciate your honesty.

[Weatherfan7]

Originally Posted by purehuman

For you to judge others as immoral because they behave and act differently than you... is immoral...What you say is obviously what you believe, and I don't think it's nonsense at all,.... I appreciate your honesty.

You're confusing judging the person with judging the action yet again. I am not judging anybody else. I judge the activity. If I consider a certain activity to be immoral, I do not do it or at least try not to do it (just because I know it's immoral it doesn't mean it's necessarily easy for me to avoid it either).

Did you not notice that is what you are actually doing with me? You say that for me to judge others as immoral (which I did not even do - I judged certain actions) because they act differently (I never said either actually. Different does not equal immoral) is immoral, hence effectively judging my action as being immoral. So are you not passing moral judgement on me (which you yourself claim to be immoral - why?) Yet all I have done is to judge actions as moral or not, I never actually pointed the finger at a particular person and said "you are immoral". I said which activities I believe to be immoral and that if somebody is doing them, they are acting immorally in that given moment, which is an observation.

Anyhow - is judging others necessarily immoral? Not sure about that. Would have to do more research. It is certainly possible to observe that some people live very immoral lives because their lives are filled with what the vast majority of people would consider to be very destructive and evil. Such as psychopaths, for instance. Most schools of religious and spiritual belief and teachings actually suggest that development of a discerning mind involves being able to discern between what is true or false, and challenge that in a person. It is possible to observe the content of a person's character by what they do, and if you really come from a place of true love, as Jesus for example did, you can challenge or judge somebody's character for the sake of notifying them of the errors in their ways. Jesus did that all the time. Not even in the Bible does it explicitly state that judgement in of itself is immoral - nor in any other spiritual teaching I have observed. What Jesus does say, is that one has to be able to judge the content of his own character and apply the same standards to himself as he does to others - the immorality of judgement hence only being applicable if one beholds judgement over another for something which he himself is guilty of.

For example. Would YOU consider randomly murdering a stranger to be immoral? If so, you have reached a level of spiritual maturity where you can observe such an action as clearly being immoral. You see someone doing it, you see someone acting immorally. How about something that most of society believes is moral now, but a more spiritually developed and wise person sees as being immoral? That person is like YOU, "judging" the murderer. They are just at a different level of spirituality, one that is somewhat higher than the average person in society.

A person's character is made up of the sum of their thoughts and actions, which are either moral or immoral, mostly a combination. For some reason, people assume a negative impression of judgement, borne of fear, I believe, or criticism, or that judgement is somehow intrinsically negative. Spiritual judgement is not critical and competitive. It is an exercise in compassion and understanding, and helping people to understand how the immoral acts they do can have dangerous consequences down the line. If we cannot judge how much anothers' character is afflicted by immoral indulgences, how can we possibly assist in helping them? It becomes impossible. Spiritual discernment teaches me what is moral or not, experience shows me examples of other people (and myself at times in my life) indulging in these things, and then the real work comes in recognising it and addressing it. Do you not realise that spiritually all people are all one? You are me and I am you. I don't mean our personalities, I mean our spiritual inner self. We all have that and it is affected the same way by negative or destructive behaviours. What I see as immoral in me I see the as the same in others. If you do not see it that way, I will not criticize you for it but accept that as your viewpoint. I will use the golden rule and discuss this matter with you in a direct honest and respectful way that I would want to be talked to.

Originally Posted by purehuman

. Your choice to abstain does not in any way make you more "spiritually fulfilled" or more "focused" than the next person.

You are getting it the wrong way round - one spiritually outgrows the physical or lustful or pleasurable desires for sex - as a result of a more spiritually oriented mind set. The thought ALWAYS comes before the action - remember. Actions are ultimately driven by our thoughts, driven by our state of mind. This is a key spiritual principle. Hence, the lack of need or desire for sex is a result of the fact that the mindset is more elevated from the desire for base pleasures. This is in my life, largely how it is, because I do not get these desires that often. Not because I said "to be more moral I will avoid sex" but because as I have learned more and experienced more spirituality, and occupied my mind with "higher" matters, I have not had the desire as much.

Originally Posted by purehuman

you can only know what is good for YOUR soul...not others.

Well believe it, or not, what is good or bad for one soul is good or bad for another, under the deepest spiritual beliefs (which are not born of my imagination) - because all souls are ONE and of the same source - GOD - who sets all moral standards. There is only GOD, we all have an extension of GOD in us, which is our true SOUL.

Originally Posted by purehuman

The amount of sex one has is not the deciding factor that denotes morality or immorality...

How can the action dictate the state of mind and being? This is not possible. Actions do not DECIDE anything, consciousnesses, thoughts and feelings DECIDE actions.

Having a "sex quota" and thinking that "how often you have sex" will directly make you more or less moral is putting the cart before the horse. You won't simply become more moral by saying "I choose to abstain from sex" and then abstaining, any more than you will become more moral by saying "I will replace all my sugary snacks with 5 raw green beans every time I get hungry" or "I will read the Bible every sunday from front to back because it will make me more moral". People who have spent a lifetime attempting to access higher spiritually oriented states of mind, along that process discover, that their state of mind has become such that it has outgrown some of the immature and base desires that a lot of people today indulge in frequently. It does not make them (or me) better than others, just at a different stage on their spiritual evolution. The more "spiritual" they became, the less sex they needed or wanted. True spirituality gives a type of joy far beyond anything you can get from sex. Far beyond that.

[NOTaTHEIST]

I apologize for the slow response. I believe we've both thoroughly expressed ourselves on the other points, so I'll just refocus on this.

Originally Posted by weatherfan7

That is assuming that people were to be having sex at the kind of rate they do currently for pleasure.

Obviously people would not be having sex (only heterosexual I'm sure) at the rate they currently do for long, because our worlds resources would collapse in just a few years and humanity would suffer a considerable die-off. So alternatively they would have to repress a very natural and strong urge. We have instances, such as the Catholic church, were the facts seem to show that having people suppress these urges doesn't turn out well. Now imagine basically an entire world with its men (and women) in the nearly the same state as celibate priests. We also have instances, like Africa, where restricting contraception leads to massive birthrates, disease transmission and famine. This is the world I believe your repressive idea would lead too.

Biologically, it's probably easier for women to suppress these urges than men. I do not know whether you're male of female, as this may be part of the issue. I'm male by the way.

I am thinking more along the lines that as more "spiritually fulfilled" or focused people, our need for any kind of sex would be very low, as it is unnecessary for the soul, and the driver for having sex would be if one wanted to have a child.

It's seems some people believe what you describe here exists. Perhaps it does for some, but I highly doubt the bulk of humanity could be convinced to accept this meme, or EVEN be able too. I'd also suggest most who claim to accept this meme, don't really believe it (I'm not suggesting you don't) and understand logically it's an impossible restriction for most.

Otherwise, no sex.

I'd imagine this includes masturbation? I'm sorry, but this extreme view of sexual repression is lost on me. You've taken a very common natural act and seem to be sanctifying it to near absurdity. Sometimes I think it's really sad our social memes didn't evolved to few sex no differently than sleeping. Both I believe are necessary for our mental and physical health.


And finally this point on morality, as if our other discussion isn't mostly focused on it anyway.

I get you, however the issue here is I would consider many things they think are moral in their sense of morality as being immoral.

Of course, this only reinforces my idea that morality is relative. I consider your extremely repressive view of human sexuality as highly immoral (if popularized, would lead to much more suffering and much less happiness). This is sadly an idea so steeped in taboo that it becomes very difficult applying scientific method (even though it could certainly answer the question within a narrow probability range) to the question of who is more correct. I've given some real-world examples of where sexual repression doesn't work (the Catholic church), or leads to great suffering (Africa, mostly because of the same religious organization).

And a personal anecdote.
I've a relative who probably shares your same ideas. She has 5 children. Her 5 children have so far had an additional 7 children (maybe 8, I've lost track). She's the only one in my family who holds to a similar antiquated notion, and she accounts for 75 percent of the new humans generated by my family on my mother's side. On my father's side, it's just me. Are her children, who have also been taught this meme any happier than the children who have not? I'd say they're demonstrably not as happy and the emotional and physical strain caused by supporting such a large amount of humans is dramatic.



One only need watch the Duggar's, "19 kids and counting" to understand the very possible reality of what you suggest. This is an extreme example to be sure, but it does make my point as they share very similar views on sexuality.

[NOTaTHEIST]

Well believe it, or not, what is good or bad for one soul is good or bad for
another, under the deepest spiritual beliefs (which are not born of my
imagination) - because all souls are ONE and of the same source - GOD - who sets
all moral standards. There is only GOD, we all have an extension of GOD in us,
which is our true SOUL.

I believe it's pretty obvious that neither purehuman nor myself believe this. As such, this is nothing more than a naked assertion from our perspective.


Edit:

GOD - who sets all moral standards

So was my original assumption that you do actually operate by divine command theory, in fact true? If so, one must ask where you're getting "GOD's" moral standards from? The Bible, or literature people write about the Bible? Or are you getting these standards from feelings you believe are generated by this god? This is the type of thing that really concerns lots of un-believers, myself included.

On a side note, is there anywhere in the bible (or any religiously produced, original text for that matter) that claims sex only for pleasure is immoral? Or is this simply something people are reading into the text. Or sure, the bible is replete with stories where sex leads to negative circumstances, generally when the god becomes upset and kills a bunch of people. But is there anywhere that says you should never have sex just for pleasure, and partaking in the act must always be done with having children in mind? I don't think that is in there.

[mordant]

This thread seems to have honed in on the virtues (or not) of asceticism, which basically views the physical body if not the physical world as base and vile and to be used only for utilitarian purposes. Hence sex is for making babies in the context of marriage and not for enjoyment, food is for sustaining the body and not to be enjoyed (although I wonder how many ascetics take this to its logical conclusion and eschew sugar and salt in all forms and live on gruel and water), exercise is to be a good steward of one's body but not for the purpose of enjoying the resulting endorphins, etc.

As someone coming from a theistic background I have the luxury of saying I've never been sexually involved with someone who is not my wife. This is quite tame by today's standards, and I don't know that it's done me any favors and enriched my life but at least I've got that base covered for people who think it's important. I have not really done anything to excess, I am close to my ideal weight, and I don't enjoy exercise (I assume Weatherfan would find enjoying exercise sinful on the principle that things that are unpleasant must be virtuous; hence my only sin is apparently in exercise avoidance).

This puts me in the fairly unusual position of having lived a traditionally restrained and old-school moral existence, while not currently really believing that it has done me any particular favors or that it makes me somehow virtuous. I simply don't know how else to be and don't feel sufficiently constrained by my moral habits to undergo the discomfort of change.

Frankly I wish I had more fond memories of mutually enthusiastic sex than I do, that I had discovered the diversity of delicious food earlier in life, and that I could somehow transmute the drudgery and boredom of physical exercise routines into some kind of religious experience that I'd actually look forward to. I think my life would be the richer for those things.

Someone explain to me what is wrong with being happy and enjoying life? And what is right about begrudging others their enjoyment of life? God forbid that anyone should enjoy life, it's more important to suffer apparently.

I have taken life way too seriously and if I weren't already on the downslope I'd ease up and sow some wild oats.