NationStates Jolt Archive

Should we base our behaviors on a "standard"? If so, what standard?

If not on "Godliness", then why not "Consentuality"? If Consentuality is too rigid for those who want to kill or pollute or oppress the destitute, then what about "Power"?

there is no such thing as a universal moral code. It was made up to try and keep people in line. Our morals are based off of our experiences, therefore, they are relative.

I'm inclined to favor "consentuality".

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

I agree that there is no uniform "code", but there have been some ideals that have been held fairly continually across most cultures through the ages.

In America, we even get into heated arguements over standards based on "health and welfare", much less religion or philosophy.

Capital punishment, abortion, drugs, and pornography can't get a respectful discussion without name-calling and sarcasm. You shoudl see the arguements at my neighborhood association meeting when we talk about selling some green space to the volunteer fire department so a new fire house can be built. "Tree-hugger" and "Capitalist pig" are the mild names thrown around.

I'm inclined to favor "consentuality".

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

I'm guessing that you favor the "mercy" killing of the terminally ill? I can't quite get there.

I'm guessing that you favor the "mercy" killing of the terminally ill? I can't quite get there.

Have you ever been terminally ill? If you were, would you want the option of ending the pain?

Consensuality is the basis for my personal morals...somewhat. I operate along the lines of "does this hurt someone else?" and "does it benefit me more than it hurts me?" If the answers are yes, then it's a go.

I understand that people in pain (mental and/or physical) and without hope may truly want to be relieved. But, I don't think we should set our standards on that. Once we do and the act has been done, the there truly is no room for recovery.

Both my father-in-law and mother-in-law died within the last year. One with brain cancer and one from advanced Alzheimer's. One was quite cognitively aware during the ordeal, and one was clueless. But, the suffering was terrible.

If mercy killing were ever allowed, I don't know where one would draw the line.

Consensuality is the basis for my personal morals...somewhat. I operate along the lines of "does this hurt someone else?" and "does it benefit me more than it hurts me?" If the answers are yes, then it's a go.


I understand what you meant.

What if the other person agrees to be hurt, how does that work? What if you agree to be hurt? Should "society" have a say in it?

I understand that people in pain (mental and/or physical) and without hope may truly want to be relieved. But, I don't think we should set our standards on that. Once we do and the act has been done, the there truly is no room for recovery.

Both my father-in-law and mother-in-law died within the last year. One with brain cancer and one from advanced Alzheimer's. One was quite cognitively aware during the ordeal, and one was clueless. But, the suffering was terrible.

If mercy killing were ever allowed, I don't know where one would draw the line.

First off, my condolences for you losses. Truely sad. My dad died in April of this year and he had suffered long and hard with Diabetes, Renal failure, both legs amputated, Congestive Heart Failure(the list goes on) and he was cognitive up until his last breath. He prayed for death. If a line were to be drawn, maybe it would be in the circustances in which a patient was aware, or cognitive and could make that decision soley. I dont know....that might be where I'd draw the line.

I'm inclined to favor "consentuality".

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

We (at least in 49 of the 50 United States) prohibit many sexual behaviors that are consentual, including prostitution.

Assuming that the prostitution should be prohibited, even though it is consentual, what is the basis for it? And, how does that align with the vogue views on permitting homosexual marriage?

We (at least in 49 of the 50 United States) prohibit many sexual behaviors that are consentual, including prostitution.

Assuming that the prostitution should be prohibited, even though it is consentual, what is the basis for it? And, how does that align with the vogue views on permitting homosexual marriage?

Again-prostitution is illegal. And it doesnt have anything to do with gay marriage. Marriage is a union of love between two people. Prostitution is........well, not.

there is no such thing as a universal moral code. It was made up to try and keep people in line. Our morals are based off of our experiences, therefore, they are relative.

Well said & Agree!

I operate along the lines of "does this hurt someone else?" and "does it benefit me more than it hurts me?" If the answers are yes, then it's a go.

Best line ever.

I'm guessing that you favor the "mercy" killing of the terminally ill? I can't quite get there.
There would have to be strict regulation to prevent killing the terminally ill from being used as a cover for homicide. That concern aside, yeah, I'm in favor of allowing the terminally ill the choice to die.

Both my father-in-law and mother-in-law died within the last year. One with brain cancer and one from advanced Alzheimer's. One was quite cognitively aware during the ordeal, and one was clueless. But, the suffering was terrible.
I'm reminded of my own grandfather and how he died. You have my condolences.

We (at least in 49 of the 50 United States) prohibit many sexual behaviors that are consentual, including prostitution.

Assuming that the prostitution should be prohibited, even though it is consentual, what is the basis for it? And, how does that align with the vogue views on permitting homosexual marriage?
Since prostitution is a consensual activity, I'm in favor of legalizing it. However, prostitution has two major problems associated with it that I'm aware of: sexually transmitted diseases (a threat to life and health) and crime (usually organized crime; a threat to life, liberty, and property). In other words, issues of public health and safety. The first problem can be mitigated with a properly funded and functioning health system, the second by a properly funded, functioning, and incorrupt law enforcement system. But, such solutions require time, effort, and money.

The next logical question, then, is: "Which requires less time, effort, and money? In cases of limited resources, where do our priorities lie?" A government, any government, might decide that regulating prostitution (and controlling its side-effects) is far more trouble/difficult/expensive/impractical than just outlawing it, that there are other costs that take higher priority, and that the government just can't spend money on everything.

I see no reason to outlaw homosexual marraige on the basis of protecting life, liberty, or property.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

then what about "Power"?
Its already based on that..

I'm guessing that you favor the "mercy" killing of the terminally ill? I can't quite get there.


Actually I favor the mercy killing of those who are terminally without a sense of humor. Their lives are pointless anyway.

Have you ever been terminally ill? If you were, would you want the option of ending the pain?

I would think if I was terminally ill I would want to spend as much time with my loved ones as possible, and damn the pain. People act like "oh these people are in pain and isn't that the most terrible thing?!" pain is relative and can be tolerated, I've watched loved ones and friends deal with excruciating pain, and none of them took the easy way out. We are not animals, we don't need to be 'put down' when we are old or Ill. besides legalizing euthanasia opens a frightening range of possibilities, since people in a lot of pain are generally delirious and wouldn't be able to direct their own care, it could lead to the euthanizing of unwilling individuals.

I have a friend that was in a motorcycle accident, she very nearly lost a leg and had several severe and life threatening bouts with infection before it was all done, she was in so much pain that they could not give her enough medication, safely, to alleviate it completely. After several weeks of dealing with this pain she became depressed and suicidal. Her case could have easily been justified as terminal at several points during the treatment. I don’t think that if euthanasia had been an option that she would be here now.

Pain is temporary, death is final. There is always something worth living for, even if it's only a few months, days, or even hours.

Should we base our behaviors on a "standard"? If so, what standard?

If not on "Godliness", then why not "Consentuality"? If Consentuality is too rigid for those who want to kill or pollute or oppress the destitute, then what about "Power"?

From what I have observed, laws against consensual activities have done nothing but harm, I can understand that they were most likely made with good intntions, but when we looked at what they have done, we can see that these prohibitory laws against personal behavior have destroyed lives, families have been broken up, millions of men and women have had to live lives hidden away and repressed their own sexuality often spiralling down into mental illness and suicide, million of young men and women have been imprisoned and forever labeled criminal because they choose to medicate themselves without the benefit of a medical professional, personal property has been confiscated by the state, rights have been abused and whats more your life , which is always your own is not considered your responsibility but that of state...as a human being I find that an obscenity, this is my life, no one can live i but me, no one else can be responsible for it but me... not even the state.

Seems to me that were back at the entire debate that I've had in my ethics class the past semester. And frankly, I think that relative morality implodes on itself. It gets rid of many things that we see as perfectly right and good, like the Nuremburg trials at the end of World War 2. How can we judge them when they were following the rules of their country at the time? Answer: there is some higher moral standard. Relative morality makes it impossible to condemn anything, even the Holocaust, because it really it's wrong anyway. I just don't like it.

As for objective morality, from Kant to Mill to Aristotle, it often sounds good, but it falls apart once we start looking at particular situations. Message me in private and I can give specific examples. Morality needs some sort of metaphysical background to give value to things, like human life. Doing ethics without that background collapses almost as fast as relativism.

Absolute (handed down from on high) morality is the only viable solution. You don't like it, tough.

I'm guessing that you favor the "mercy" killing of the terminally ill? I can't quite get there.

Wait, that came after a post saying that he favor consensuality...
Mercy killing is not consensual, so I doubt he favors that..
An assisted suicide is, however.

Do what you will, only harm none.

You should do what you like as long as what you are doing doesn't affect others in a negative way.
So doing drugs is fine, as long as you don't go out and hurt people while on them, or let it become an addiction, where your behaviour becomes hurtful to others because you don't have the drugs. Smoking in an open field would be fine, but in a closed room with people who don't smoke - wrong.
Killing yourself is fine. Helping someone who wants to die, is fine because what you are doing to them is (from their point of view) a postive thing.
Killing someone who doesn't want to die is right out, as is killing someone who can't tell you whether they want to live or die.
Sex with anyone you like is fine if it's consensual, but if you have another partner who would be hurt by your actions with someone else, then its wrong.

Prostitution and same-sex civil law unions are legal where I come from.

I would still be a moral person, without the religious "standards". Can't say that about everyone though...

Seems to me that were back at the entire debate that I've had in my ethics class the past semester. And frankly, I think that relative morality implodes on itself. It gets rid of many things that we see as perfectly right and good, like the Nuremburg trials at the end of World War 2. How can we judge them when they were following the rules of their country at the time? Answer: there is some higher moral standard. Relative morality makes it impossible to condemn anything, even the Holocaust, because it really it's wrong anyway. I just don't like it.

As for objective morality, from Kant to Mill to Aristotle, it often sounds good, but it falls apart once we start looking at particular situations. Message me in private and I can give specific examples. Morality needs some sort of metaphysical background to give value to things, like human life. Doing ethics without that background collapses almost as fast as relativism.

Absolute (handed down from on high) morality is the only viable solution. You don't like it, tough.

The same metaphysics that are used to uphold a moral code could be used to justify gross immorality...if you don't believe me..read the Bible...or any history book

Clearly, many people have expressed opposing views, but the discussionhas been polite. I appreciate that..glad to see folks can have opinions about serious topics without being ugly to each other -- something rare in many threads.

The same metaphysics that are used to uphold a moral code could be used to justify gross immorality...if you don't believe me..read the Bible...or any history book

I'm a Christian, and I do read my Bible, and history is my passion. You are right that many people use the Bible to justify horrible atrocities, but that does not take away from what the system is supposed to be. My point is that no other system presents a decent option. Of course, this still leaves us with deciding which absolutist system to use (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Platonic, etc).