NationStates Jolt Archive

There is a question that I play with from time to time, and that question is where should I draw from in determining how to live my life. Should I follow basic instincts, or what is good for society, or that feeling in my heart, or logic, or what? Those of us who grew up with the church as our compass for moralistic and ethical north find ourselves conflicted and lost.

There are many things that I believe are wrong without question: infidelity, unfairness and murder. Something deep inside me tells me these things are wrong, yet these same factors do not appear to resonate in the conscience of all human beings. Does this mean that each individual might hold a unique moral code. Does this mean there is no such thing as a universal moral code? Is morality taught, or is it somehow in built to ensure the survival of our species.

Living in an ever changing world and knowing that logic is the cornerstone of my mind, yet I am still drawn to find this answers is a conflict that surely cannot be natural and begs the question: is the Judeo-Christian concept of morality undermining our ability to thrive, or underpinning our ability to live in harmony.

It was when I made the decision to live my life by reason and logic, and the subsequent decision that if God really exists he could be proven to exist by logic, that I concluded that Christianity was inheritly flawed. Yet, by the same token did not negate the inexplicable drawing I feel towards the Roman Church.

All of this provides more questions by answers, and perhaps there are none, but that's a possibility I would prefer not entertain.

There have been numerous secular scientists that have become christians after trying to disprove the notion of God...

none that i can name, mind you... ;)

Actually it's the biologists who are the staunchest anti-theists...
[you can't call them secular or atheist anymore - they have too much venom and hatred against any theism for it to be considered that neutral a term]

The quantum physicists and the cosmologists are the ones who are becoming theists [ one rough survey had it at over 70% !!!] and when i say becoming I mean it - only about two-thirds of them had any form of religious upbringing prior to their studying the subject...spooky eh?

I kind of go with dostoyevsky and cardinal newman and Nietzsche on the whole God thing...

If God does not exist - then everything is permissible - there is no such thing as right and wrong, the are all illusory mental or social constructs and we can do anything we bloody well want to...

but, in my eyes we have this internal "Tao" that has nothing to do with survival of the fittest or maintaining the genetic make-up or continuance of the species - I think it's what the catholic and orthodox churches call "Natural Law" - we're more than the sum of our parts - we're inextricably linked - and when it comes to "the crunch" - we really do know what is right and wrong and usually have to be self-deceptive or pragmatically equivocative to make excuses when we do or don't do the right thing....

and we get this guilt?
can this simply be brain chemicals designed for our genes to thrive? I think richard dawkins is an unmitigated &%$£#***

anyway - I believe in God, and the consequences that entails....

is the Judeo-Christian concept of morality undermining our ability to thrive, or underpinning our ability to live in harmony.


Neither. Religious values help some of us live, but aren't functionally necessary. The threat of force is generally enough to compel basic morality in the absence of religion. Religion *can* create a harmonious life for believers, perhaps even greater harmony than under "common sense" morality, but in modern Western society, few people live in religiously homogenous environments. We can have harmony without religion, and harmony with it. Honest religious belief isn't adopted for utility's sake, after all.

I'm an Atheist. I am also a follower of Zhuang-zi's school of Daoism. I see no conflict, since The Dao is less a religion than a philosophy of life.

Traditional morality is based upon punitive religion, but morality can be based upon any self-referential philosophical system, even one as simple as "the greatest good for the greatest number." Ultimately, one must make one's own choices according to what one values.

God has nothing to do with modern morality of the majority of people, at least in the West. If everybody who called themselves Christian actually followed what God commands in the Bible the world would be a very scary place. Our morality and ethics are derived from as somebody mention pre-existing social constructs of what is acceptable as well as a genetic disposition to helping others and being generally civil. There is a chapter about this in the God Delusion which is pretty interesting.

If, as some religious people say, God and the punishment of hell is the only thing that is stopping people from doing whatever they want then I don't want to know what these guys wish they could do if hell didn't exist as a deterant.

I really don't understand why people make the assumption that non-religious people are immoral.

We are taught what is acceptable within our society by various methods and sources.

Cultural Relativism.

Further to this, there is an innate understanding of right and wrong.

The title of the OP is Morality in a godless nation - religion has been the cause of much suffering and immorality throughout the world. There are good people and bad people. Religion does not solve this problem.

There is a question that I play with from time to time, and that question is where should I draw from in determining how to live my life. Should I follow basic instincts, or what is good for society, or that feeling in my heart, or logic, or what? Those of us who grew up with the church as our compass for moralistic and ethical north find ourselves conflicted and lost.

There are many things that I believe are wrong without question: infidelity, unfairness and murder. Something deep inside me tells me these things are wrong, yet these same factors do not appear to resonate in the conscience of all human beings. Does this mean that each individual might hold a unique moral code. Does this mean there is no such thing as a universal moral code? Is morality taught, or is it somehow in built to ensure the survival of our species.

Morality is taught. A good idea, imo, for a moral code without religion is "what is good for society? what respects the individual?".

I could go on for ages, but don't want to right now.

Hmm. I don't know how I really live, but I do plan to carve the manner in which it will be decided.

One fine day, (probably after University) I'll take a long looooooooooong journey across some random region of the world - most likely Central Asia/Mongolia. In some sense, I'd be there to find more about myself.

Sorry if it doesn't help your cause, but there are always those that need to go on a 'mecca' to shape their views.

The quantum physicists and the cosmologists are the ones who are becoming theists [ one rough survey had it at over 70% !!!] and when i say becoming I mean it - only about two-thirds of them had any form of religious upbringing prior to their studying the subject...spooky eh?

you mean that about 66% of them were theists to begin with, and now they are at 70%? :eek:

as an atheist I have one moral rule : don't do unto others that wich they don't want you to do, and expect them to behave the same way toward you.

in short : if it hurts no one, go ahead.

I found that this covers pretty much everything.

There have been numerous secular scientists that have become christians after trying to disprove the notion of God...

none that i can name, mind you... ;)

Then what was the point of posting? If you can't name them why should anyone believe what you say to be the case.

as an atheist I have one moral rule : don't do unto others that wich they don't want you to do, and expect them to behave the same way toward you.

in short : if it hurts no one, go ahead.

I found that this covers pretty much everything.
All you have done with your moral rule is twist the wording of the Golden Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity), but in essence you are stating the same thing:

The ethic of reciprocity or "The Golden Rule" is a fundamental moral principle found in virtually all major religions and cultures, which simply means "treat others as you would like to be treated." It is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights. Principal philosophers and religious figures have stated it in different ways:

"Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD." — Moses (ca. 1525-1405 BCE) in the Torah Leviticus 19:18 (pertaining here, however, strictly to "thy people", i.e., Hebrews)

"This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you." from the Mahabharata (5:15:17) (ca. 500BCE)

"What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." — Confucius (ca. 551–479 BCE)

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man." — Hillel (ca. 50 BCE-10 CE)

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." — Jesus (ca. 5 BCE—33 CE) in the Gospels, Matthew 7:12 (affirming Moses), Luke 6:31 (extending explicitly to non-Jews)

"Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you." — Muhammad (c. 571 – 632 CE) in The Farewell Sermon.
Your "rule" is hardly unique. :D

I really don't understand why people make the assumption that non-religious people are immoral.

We are taught what is acceptable within our society by various methods and sources.

Cultural Relativism.


Indeed.

"Right" and "wrong" aren't absolutes; they're social constructs.

I'm an atheist, and I have my own sense of ethics (based essentially on "Don't do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you"). Where exactly it comes from is a good question.


One fine day, (probably after University) I'll take a long looooooooooong journey across some random region of the world - most likely Central Asia/Mongolia. In some sense, I'd be there to find more about myself.

Sorry if it doesn't help your cause, but there are always those that need to go on a 'mecca' to shape their views.

That's an excellent idea. The best way to discover that your own views, morals and beliefs are culturally subjective - and not universal - is to visit foreign countries with very different cultures.

I really don't understand why people make the assumption that non-religious people are immoral. It's simple, really--the people making that assumption are themselves religious, and they're not particularly deep thinkers. Making that assumption allows them to feel good about themselves, to feel superior to those of us who haven't accepted or who no longer accept their view of the world. That's not to say that all religious people feel that way--they don't. I'm just talking about that subset.


The title of the OP is Morality in a godless nation - religion has been the cause of much suffering and immorality throughout the world. There are good people and bad people. Religion does not solve this problem.

Well said.

Indeed. That's an excellent idea. The best way to discover that your own views, morals and beliefs are culturally subjective - and not universal - is to visit foreign countries with very different cultures.

Thank you.

All you have done with your moral rule is twist the wording of the Golden Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity), but in essence you are stating the same thing:


Your rule is hardly unique. :D

yup, but saying "thou shalt not kill" isn't either.

this one can be found without having a supreme being tekking it to you.

besides, the twist is intentional, as it takes care of situations were someone might want me to do something that I wouldn't want to be done to me... :D

I kind of go with dostoyevsky and cardinal newman and Nietzsche on the whole God thing...

If God does not exist - then everything is permissible - there is no such thing as right and wrong, the are all illusory mental or social constructs and we can do anything we bloody well want to...


Tell that to the -

Aztecs
Spartans
Athenians
Persians
Romans
Polynesians
Eskimo
Egyptians

etc etc

In the past, religion was needed to threaten and coerce obedience from ignorant savages, to make them understand the principle of 'don't do it to others if you wouldn't like it doing to you, except when we tell you to because we want someone else's land/water/livestock/women/power'
Now we know better, but have these instinctive holdovers of behavior still, as well as the historical fallout from all the wars, we have the problem of retraining the brainwashed superstitious and the remaining ignorant (and now traumatised) savages.
The answer is still the golden rule, and with the knowledge that nobody goes to a fluffy white castle in the sky after death, this should focus minds admirably on living well and properly.
In addition, the human population must be cut back, and dangerous ecological policies dealt with swiftly, which means that many of the leaders and their views need to be changed.
And how many here believe that they will go quietly?:rolleyes:

If you honestly need religion to tell you how to be a decent human being, then I am deeply sorry for you. You must have had absolutely no good role models whatsoever.

Yes, morality is subjective. 100%. There is no "objective" moral standard, because right and wrong are defined by human beings.

However, we are social animals, and we are all able to understand the need for structure and compromise when we are trying to live together. We can understand the pragmatic reasons for a shared system of law and a shared code of behavior that all agree to live by.

Hmmmmmmmm...many interesting theories...but I have to say you are all being a little naïve.

The majority of you have automatically, one after another assumed the same incorrect thing about 'morals', and those who have touched on the truth have shied away from discovering the full truth. Let me explain...

Firstly...where have 'morals' come from?...You got this one right...the one answer is that 'morals' have developed over time due to human society increasing in size...indeed if we each individually had never known another living thing, we would live with no need for 'morals'. However, this is where the majority go wrong. Most people let this lead them to the conclusion that 'morals' are the means with which we enable ourselves to live alongside others, suggesting that they were developed with a selfless purpose to keep ourselves from wronging others, but if you look deeper you will find this is not the case.

This has been your mistake...most of you assumed that the development of 'morals' began with noble intentions and therefore have been asking the wrong questions.

Look deeper and you will find a darker truth...

In fact, the common definiton of 'morals' concerning the distinction between right and wrong is a disguise for the true, hidden intent for the use of 'morals'. While we may have all conned ourselves into believing that we follow certain codes selflessly with concern for 'the greater good', there is in fact an underlying infestation of selfishness in all our "moralistic" actions.

The famous saying, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" cannot be misinterpreted, and yet many people fail to read into it. We choose to learn from the saying that we should treat others the way we wish to be treated in the hope that we will be treated as we would deem fair. Look only a little deeper and it is plain to see the selfishness of this 'moral'. We use this 'moral' to help ourselves gain security...not to ensure the security of others, but we con ourselves into believing that we follow this code of behaviour to the benefit of those around us. It is completely contradictory of the commonly accepted definition of a 'moral' that I explained above.

Therefore to conclude, it is completely irrelevant who is deemed "moral" and who is deemed "immoral" because morality is ONE BIG LIE we use to make ourselves feel better.

Therefore to conclude, it is completely irrelevant who is deemed "moral" and who is deemed "immoral" because morality is ONE BIG LIE we use to make ourselves feel better.
Now that is naive.

I'll say it again: humans are social animals. Who is and is not deemed "moral" is often amazingly important. "Immoral" people have been burnt at the stake. "Immoral" people are frequently stripped of rights and/or freedoms. "Immorality" is often seen as justification for removing the protection of law from a person or group of people.

Morality isn't a lie at all. Internal morality is as real and honest as the individual chooses to make it, and group morality is a type of contract between members of that group. The fact that there are pragmatic--and often selfish--motives behind morality doesn't make it a lie at all, unless you are naive enough to think that "morality" must be selfless in order to be honest.

If you happen to lie to yourself about it then that's your business, but don't project your foibles onto others.

While you cant identify a universal set of morals across people and cultures there are definite patterns among people. Our morality developed from our ancestors living in circles of kinship, generosity/protection/love evolved so that the survival of members within these circles would be improved and that their genetic codes would survive. So good samirtan acts etc are essentially products of this component called empathy that evolved with respect to looking out for your next of kin within these tribes. In any case our morals have evolved. I wouldnt rely on the bible for my morals, go read it and youll find its fairly hardcore, sodomizing/rape/murder/genocide/child abuse...and these are justified e.g. Everyone getting butchered in Jericho was somehow ordained by God, the most in your face character in the book.

Psycopaths are the obvious exception and were the counterpart to empathic people back in the early days. In fact there was a perfectly healthy good natured individual who received microscopic brain damage to his frontal cortex in a car crash. He subsequently lost the ability to love and feels nothing. Hes basically a sociopath or at least analogous to a psychopath.

Now thats not to say there is no God, I just think the bible conception of whatever God may be does not exist.

Hmmmmmmmm...many interesting theories...but I have to say you are all being a little naïve.

The majority of you have automatically, one after another assumed the same incorrect thing about 'morals', and those who have touched on the truth have shied away from discovering the full truth. Let me explain...

Firstly...where have 'morals' come from?...You got this one right...the one answer is that 'morals' have developed over time due to human society increasing in size...indeed if we each individually had never known another living thing, we would live with no need for 'morals'. However, this is where the majority go wrong. Most people let this lead them to the conclusion that 'morals' are the means with which we enable ourselves to live alongside others, suggesting that they were developed with a selfless purpose to keep ourselves from wronging others, but if you look deeper you will find this is not the case.

This has been your mistake...most of you assumed that the development of 'morals' began with noble intentions and therefore have been asking the wrong questions.

Look deeper and you will find a darker truth...

In fact, the common definiton of 'morals' concerning the distinction between right and wrong is a disguise for the true, hidden intent for the use of 'morals'. While we may have all conned ourselves into believing that we follow certain codes selflessly with concern for 'the greater good', there is in fact an underlying infestation of selfishness in all our "moralistic" actions.

The famous saying, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" cannot be misinterpreted, and yet many people fail to read into it. We choose to learn from the saying that we should treat others the way we wish to be treated in the hope that we will be treated as we would deem fair. Look only a little deeper and it is plain to see the selfishness of this 'moral'. We use this 'moral' to help ourselves gain security...not to ensure the security of others, but we con ourselves into believing that we follow this code of behaviour to the benefit of those around us. It is completely contradictory of the commonly accepted definition of a 'moral' that I explained above.

Therefore to conclude, it is completely irrelevant who is deemed "moral" and who is deemed "immoral" because morality is ONE BIG LIE we use to make ourselves feel better.


i think youre right. we do the things we are inclined to and that we can get away with and we justify it afterwards as being moral somehow even when it goes against our stated morality.

sometimes we incorporate our non-standard behavior into a non-standard moral code, sometimes we just pretend that we actually follow a standard moral code and do as we think best in private.

on the other hand, morals do give us a general guide to acceptable behavior. its good to be reminded that its not acceptable to steal candy from a baby as we find our hand reaching toward the stroller. a common moral code (more or less common) also lets us know when we have a reason to be aggrieved when things dont go our way. not every decision that people make is in our favor. we tend to get pissed when that happens. common morality gives us a guide to when they did us wrong and when they didnt. the more we all agree on "the rules" the less friction there will be in society.

You know that you are acting morally when you act selflessly.

Do unto others as they would have done unto them.

Now that is naive.

I'll say it again: humans are social animals. Who is and is not deemed "moral" is often amazingly important. "Immoral" people have been burnt at the stake. "Immoral" people are frequently stripped of rights and/or freedoms. "Immorality" is often seen as justification for removing the protection of law from a person or group of people.

Morality isn't a lie at all. Internal morality is as real and honest as the individual chooses to make it, and group morality is a type of contract between members of that group. The fact that there are pragmatic--and often selfish--motives behind morality doesn't make it a lie at all, unless you are naive enough to think that "morality" must be selfless in order to be honest.

If you happen to lie to yourself about it then that's your business, but don't project your foibles onto others.


Perhaps if you had read my post properly then you wouldnt have felt the need to post his...you accuse me of being naïve when you are doing exactly as I have explained and refusing to question yourself.

I think you'll find that importance and relevance do actually mean different things and that in fact in my post I was applying relevance in a different way to how you seem to have interpreted. I agree that the persecution of people due to others' opinions on "morality" is a very important issue.

However...this does not mean morality exists as it is claimed to. It is a lie and is often used as an excuse to persecute.

You say that the selfish motives behind morality do not make it a lie...but considering the definition, you couldn't be more wrong...how can someone trully distinguish between right and wrong if they are tainted by their own selfishness? The answer is they cant...so they pretend they are being 'moral' in order to satisfy their own selfish needs. They are lying to themselves about being moral...and morality is supposed to live in the people, therefore...morality itself is a lie.

I could ask you a question about your morality...but I already know your answer...you would choose the nice answer over the selfish answer and fall into the same blackhole that all of us do because we can't admit to ourselves the truth...we are all selfish because we were born that way...it's the instinct to survive - dog eat dog. Society is a mess...and it keeps getting worse because we cannot admit to ourselves our true intentions...and therefore we cannot change our true intentions...

I'm sorry if you can't stand my pessimistic outlook but I don't choose to be this way...I just think logically.

Judeo-Christian morality is, of course, an anachronsitic irrelevance, however, its removal would be a little difficult, and I defy the will of most people to reject it through thought.

You know that you are acting morally when you act selflessly.

Do unto others as they would have done unto them.

Why not prove the proposition for the op?

I kind of go with .....cardinal newman...... on the whole God thing...
..

Hah! I go to his school (Cardinal Newman school).

Now that is naive.

I'll say it again: humans are social animals. Who is and is not deemed "moral" is often amazingly important. "Immoral" people have been burnt at the stake. "Immoral" people are frequently stripped of rights and/or freedoms. "Immorality" is often seen as justification for removing the protection of law from a person or group of people.

Morality isn't a lie at all. Internal morality is as real and honest as the individual chooses to make it, and group morality is a type of contract between members of that group. The fact that there are pragmatic--and often selfish--motives behind morality doesn't make it a lie at all, unless you are naive enough to think that "morality" must be selfless in order to be honest.

If you happen to lie to yourself about it then that's your business, but don't project your foibles onto others.

I think its a bit much to describe the concept of Kantian ethics as merely naive.

I could ask you a question about your morality...but I already know your answer...you would choose the nice answer over the selfish answer and fall into the same blackhole that all of us do because we can't admit to ourselves the truth...we are all selfish because we were born that way...it's the instinct to survive - dog eat dog. Society is a mess...and it keeps getting worse because we cannot admit to ourselves our true intentions...and therefore we cannot change our true intentions.

Altruism is inherently a part of our nature; a society, or a species, or any group that tried to function according to selfish impulses alone would collapse because social interaction is necessary to the survival of the group, and the survival of the group is ultimately paramount.

The evolutionary process has not wired us to work this way; it is in our best interests, as social animals, to act selflessly (or at least act in a way in which others benefit) because it will improve ourselves as individuals as well as the group. It's hardly coincidental that the concepts of altruism and honesty are nearly universal; it is in our nature to be concerned for others, and it is from this fundamental sense of altruism that our more complicated moral and ethical ideas emerged.

Altruism is inherently a part of our nature; a society, or a species, or any group that tried to function according to selfish impulses alone would collapse because social interaction is necessary to the survival of the group, and the survival of the group is ultimately paramount.

The evolutionary process has not wired us to work this way; it is in our best interests, as social animals, to act selflessly (or at least act in a way in which others benefit) because it will improve ourselves as individuals as well as the group. It's hardly coincidental that the concepts of altruism and honesty are nearly universal; it is in our nature to be concerned for others, and it is from this fundamental sense of altruism that our more complicated moral and ethical ideas emerged.

many social animals even insects have the same basic instinct to look out for each other, protect the weakest...none of that is based on religion, morality is hardwired into us from birth...unfortunately such behaviour is usually only extended to the family group, hence we have no problem killing our neighbours(wars)

many social animals even insects have the same basic instinct to look out for each other, protect the weakest...none of that is based on religion, morality is hardwired into us from birth...unfortunately such behaviour is usually only extended to the family group, hence we have no problem killing our neighbours(wars)

That's what I mean. Although to a degree, that motivation has spread in recent history given the rise of increasingly globalized thinking; there are more people today concerned about the well-being of humanity overall than there were in the past. If anything, our sense of altruism has evolved to gradually expand out of the local unit to larger and larger groups of people.

Obviously, if you're spiritually inclined you might interpret such a "hardwiring" towards actions considered morally good to have religious implications, but that's an interpretation of the evidence rather than the evidence itself.

That's what I mean. Although to a degree, that motivation has spread in recent history given the rise of increasingly globalized thinking; there are more people today concerned about the well-being of humanity overall than there were in the past. If anything, our sense of altruism has evolved to gradually expand out of the local unit to larger and larger groups of people.

Obviously, if you're spiritually inclined you might interpret such a "hardwiring" towards actions considered morally good to have religious implications, but that's an interpretation of the evidence rather than the evidence itself.

globalized thinking isn't a natural thing for us, it's our ability to reason that makes it possible...morality for us was only extended to the hunter gatherer groups we lived in and counted on for our survival...but our numbers increased to point were it became tribal then national and now global...many people still have a problem getting past extending morality past the family group...

many social animals even insects have the same basic instinct to look out for each other, protect the weakest
Not to be a nit-picker, but you can't really use social insects as a parallel because their hive behavior is anything but altruistic. A worker ant, for instance, is more genetically related to her sisters than she would be to her own offspring (due to the way their chromosomes work), so it is in her own selfish best interests to protect the colony and her sister ants.

Altruism refers to self-sacrifice. It is doing something that is not beneficial to one's self, and which may even be harmful, in order to safeguard the well-being of another. The overwhelming majority of research suggests that altruism is not found in nature. Instead, individuals have "selfish" motivations to help others in many cases. This is particularly true with social animals (like primates), because there are many benefits for individuals who are helpful and supportive members of their social group.

I don't see what is so great about getting your morality from god what with those times he's killed and had people killed. The only moral truth I get from god is "might makes right".

Not to be a nit-picker, but you can't really use social insects as a parallel because their hive behavior is anything but altruistic. A worker ant, for instance, is more genetically related to her sisters than she would be to her own offspring (due to the way their chromosomes work), so it is in her own selfish best interests to protect the colony and her sister ants.

Altruism refers to self-sacrifice. It is doing something that is not beneficial to one's self, and which may even be harmful, in order to safeguard the well-being of another. The overwhelming majority of research suggests that altruism is not found in nature. Instead, individuals have "selfish" motivations to help others in many cases. This is particularly true with social animals (like primates), because there are many benefits for individuals who are helpful and supportive members of their social group.

in a hunter gatherer group of early humans it was in each individuals own best interest to protect the extended family just like a hive...

social insects readily sacrifice themselves to protect the hive, bees commit suicide when they sting an invader...

survival is always a selfish motivation regardless if humans do it or lower primates...if the social group is strong you live, if it is weak you die, we are no different than the animals, the reason we do it is the same,survival...you're giving humans to much credit for being unique, we're not...

There is no absolute moral code outside of religion. Morality is subjective in human society; we all have our own ideas about what is moral and what is immoral. Whether an action is viewed as moral or not depends on the person or persons judging that action. This is why different countries can have wildly different laws and why laws change over time.

However, in religion, the only being who can pass judgement on your soul is God. So if there is a God who is perfectly good, morality can be defined in an objective way. Good = that which pleases God, Bad = that which displeases God.

Since we can't prove that God exists, we live by our own moral codes and laws are put into place to create an environment for peace and order.

Well, thank god we have godly people in this nation. Otherwise our major leaders would be doing things like buying meth, screwing prostitutes, saying destroyed cities 'deserved it' and assassinating the democratically elected leaders of other countries.


Oh, wait...

There is no absolute moral code outside of religion. Morality is subjective in human society; we all have our own ideas about what is moral and what is immoral. Whether an action is viewed as moral or not depends on the person or persons judging that action. This is why different countries can have wildly different laws and why laws change over time.

However, in religion, the only being who can pass judgement on your soul is God. So if there is a God who is perfectly good, morality can be defined in an objective way. Good = that which pleases God, Bad = that which displeases God.

Since we can't prove that God exists, we live by our own moral codes and laws are put into place to create an environment for peace and order.

we all have the same basic moral laws without a need for a god...a billion of the worlds people are non theists, how is it they are not all raping, stealing,murdering and generally running amuck without divinely inspired laws?....as societies become more complex so do their rules that is why there are variations of laws but the basic rules are the same everywhere...

There is no absolute moral code outside of religion.

And the "absolute moral code" of religion only exists WITHIN THAT RELIGION, and is therefore also subjective. It's just that the religious believer doesn't accept that their morality is subjective; instead, they enjoy telling themselves that their morality is better than everybody else's morality.

There is no absolute moral code outside of religion. Morality is subjective in human society; we all have our own ideas about what is moral and what is immoral. Whether an action is viewed as moral or not depends on the person or persons judging that action. This is why different countries can have wildly different laws and why laws change over time.

However, in religion, the only being who can pass judgement on your soul is God. So if there is a God who is perfectly good, morality can be defined in an objective way. Good = that which pleases God, Bad = that which displeases God.

Since we can’t prove that God exists, we live by our own moral codes and laws are put into place to create an environment for peace and order.
Morality certainly isn’t completely relative. No matter which culture on Earth one decides to view, we can quickly observe within that culture moral values that transcend the society’s boundaries; a distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’, a concept of fairness, a desire to help others in need, the notions of rights and obligations, a belief that justice should be applied to wrongdoing, and a condemnation of rape, murder and other various forms of violence. Moral relativists often highlight the variations of the above between cultures, claiming these variations back up their thesis of relativity (see Donald Brown’s Human Universals (http://condor.depaul.edu/~mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm)).

However, they fail to recognise that these variations are all differences of belief (whether factual or supernatural) about what constitutes ‘fairness’, ‘wrongdoing’, etc., or variations in economic, material and political circumstances that necessarily affect those beliefs, all centering around a core set of universal, objective moral values. It is these cultural variations in beliefs (rather than a relativism of moral values), combined with what Steven Pinker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker) calls the “irrelevant passions and prejudices” such as anger, revenge, pride, etc., that cloud our core moral values, which reconcile the apparent differences between cultures’ moralities and the objective morality of humankind.

In fact, the psychologists Jonathan Haidt and Paul Rozin have put forward an evolutionary explanation for this objective morality. They argue, with good evidence, that morality is not defined by culture, but rather produced by a set of “universal mental faculties with different evolutionary origins and functions”. If it is true that we all share an inbuilt morality, ‘hard-wired’ to help us survive and propagate as a species, there is very little room, if any at all, left for moral relativism.

Also, God being the source of all morality entails problems as well. If God is the source of all morality, then murder, theft, etc., are not bad actions in themselves, they are merely bad because god says they are. Proscribed by the whim of Go, so to speak.

OTOH, if God proscribes actions such as murder because they are intrinsically bad, then morality is separate from God; there is some other moral authority in the universe.

Which leads to all kinds of hoo-hah.

Morality has its origins in society. Constructed by humans or otherwise, a given set of morals has the authority granted to it by its proponents, which can itself be a substantial force in a sufficiently large and autonomous community.

Rather than social ethics being void without the existence of God, it could be reinterpreted that Gods, conceptually, originate from a particular expression of social ethics where the mind of the community is given a personification in the form of a divine entity; in which case, your morality is equally valid whether or not the myths attributed to them are truthful, allegorical or non-existent.

many social animals even insects have the same basic instinct to look out for each other, protect the weakest...none of that is based on religion, morality is hardwired into us from birth...unfortunately such behaviour is usually only extended to the family group, hence we have no problem killing our neighbours(wars)


but deep down the reason for this is not that we are selfless...the basic instinct to protect our family is in fact a selfish one as the true desire behind such an instinct is to be protected by your family.

Every individual will have their own morality, each will break it when they stand to benefit by a different amount nad each will obey when it costs them little enough.
Morality is learnt. Its just that easy.

Altruism is inherently a part of our nature; a society, or a species, or any group that tried to function according to selfish impulses alone would collapse because social interaction is necessary to the survival of the group, and the survival of the group is ultimately paramount.

The evolutionary process has not wired us to work this way; it is in our best interests, as social animals, to act selflessly (or at least act in a way in which others benefit) because it will improve ourselves as individuals as well as the group. It's hardly coincidental that the concepts of altruism and honesty are nearly universal; it is in our nature to be concerned for others, and it is from this fundamental sense of altruism that our more complicated moral and ethical ideas emerged.

Sorry, but I cannot find any suggestions of merit in the above. In misusing "altruism", and applying it to the cause of collectivism, you make an indefensible axiom.

In any case, "nature", as you homogenously refer to it, is rarely, of not never, altruistic. Might, to use a cliche, equates directly to right in nature, whereas the social axiom of disempowerment and defence flies in the face of this.

From an egotheist point of view, morality is something that all human beings are endowed with by virtue of their own divinity. So in a way, it echos both the religious view that morality comes from 'God', and the humanist view that it comes from within.

Of course, before humans made the evolutionary leap from being animals to becoming mortal gods, there was a biological advantage to limited altruism, and so that degree of instinctual morality also resides within our temporal biologies.

In conclusion, Golden Rule FTW.

The idea there is no morality without Allah is rather foolish. Granted my own personal sense of morality is based on an Islamic view, it is entirely possible to be moral(ie dont kill, steal, etc) and not believe in a deity.

Morality is taught. A good idea, imo, for a moral code without religion is "what is good for society? what respects the individual?".

I could go on for ages, but don't want to right now.

I agree. That's fundamentally the basis for my own code of ethics and morality. It's basically situation ethics mixed with a balance of collectivism and individualism. I think its groovy, but I really can't express it in a coherant manner.

Sorry, but I cannot find any suggestions of merit in the above. In misusing "altruism", and applying it to the cause of collectivism, you make an indefensible axiom.

In any case, "nature", as you homogenously refer to it, is rarely, of not never, altruistic. Might, to use a cliche, equates directly to right in nature, whereas the social axiom of disempowerment and defence flies in the face of this.

Translation: Altruism is misused when it used to support collectivism, and thus makes an indefensible "For the Motherland!!!!" ideology.

Human nature is not altruistic, but rather runs contrary to it. Might makes right in nature, whereas any attempt of stopping this runs against human nature

My Response: Go read Mutual Aid, and think about really hard about your life.

Sorry, but I cannot find any suggestions of merit in the above. In misusing "altruism", and applying it to the cause of collectivism, you make an indefensible axiom.

In any case, "nature", as you homogenously refer to it, is rarely, of not never, altruistic. Might, to use a cliche, equates directly to right in nature, whereas the social axiom of disempowerment and defence flies in the face of this.

WTF!...I'm not the most educated person on this board but I'm not dumbest either and I have no idea of what you're trying to say here...

However, the term moral, as you employ it, is inextricably associated with Islamic morality. Social axioms, presuppositions and obligations are all derived from the roots of society itself, and thus to dissassociate one's being "moral" from the roots of said morality is ridiculous.

That doesn't disprove his claim. Using big words like that to try to confuse people is not a substitute for argumenation.

EDIT: Damn Time Warp!

The idea there is no morality without Allah is rather foolish. Granted my own personal sense of morality is based on an Islamic view, it is entirely possible to be moral(ie dont kill, steal, etc) and not believe in a deity.

However, the term moral, as you employ it, is inextricably associated with Islamic morality. Social axioms, presuppositions and obligations are all derived from the roots of society itself, and thus to dissassociate one's being "moral" from the roots of said morality is ridiculous.

I believe in god (not the Judeo-Christian-Islamic one), but my sense of morality is mostly the "live and let live" idea. If someone isn't harming another, then let them live as they see fit, and live the way that is right for you.

However, the term moral, as you employ it, is inextricably associated with Islamic morality. Social axioms, presuppositions and obligations are all derived from the roots of society itself, and thus to dissassociate one's being "moral" from the roots of said morality is ridiculous.

Morality is subjective. My own personal sense of morality comes from Islam, others do not.

The idea there is no morality without Allah is rather foolish. Granted my own personal sense of morality is based on an Islamic view, it is entirely possible to be moral(ie dont kill, steal, etc) and not believe in a deity.

Morality is subjective. My own personal sense of morality comes from Islam, others do not.

There may be hope for you after all.

as an atheist I have one moral rule : don't do unto others that wich they don't want you to do, and expect them to behave the same way toward you.
That's the Golden Rule. It's found in Christianity and almost every other religion too.

That's the Golden Rule. It's found in Christianity and almost every other religion too.

Including some that don't have gods.

It's simple, really--the people making that assumption are themselves religious, and they're not particularly deep thinkers. Making that assumption allows them to feel good about themselves, to feel superior to those of us who haven't accepted or who no longer accept their view of the world. That's not to say that all religious people feel that way--they don't. I'm just talking about that subset.

Just as a counterpoint, some of us ask, not because we assume you godless heathens are going to Hell ( :P ) , but we're really just curious. I mean, we have our right and wrong from our God, but you don't believe what we believe. So it stands to reason that, if you have a moral code--which you obviously do--you must have an alternative method of creating it, no?

That didn't come out sounding too bad, did it?

From one of my ambiguous, amateurish, and immature attempts at writing poetry: "our sentience is a monstrous joke/and it is a silent monster to appreciate it". Without a God and with little or nothing to seperate us from animals, the only meaning that we can assign to this universe is the meaning we create as people. Thus, there is no reason why there SHOULD be a universal moral code, and consequently there probably is not a universal code out there to be found.



Now that I've exorcised the angsty pseudo-existential teen in me...I feel you about being drawn instinctively to certian beliefs. I could try to dismiss it, the way some critics dismiss it, by saying it's part of a sexual desire to allow others to control us, to be free from thought or from being our own masters. However, I can't. I have personally felt drawn towards Buddhism at times...the idea of eliminating the ego, of achieving total completeness by achieving total emptiness, of realizing that all things are the same, and only differ due to our perception. Of all of the major religions, Buddhism is probably the most philosophically sound...maybe not to such a degree to make practice but sufficiently to nurture a healthy fascination with its ideas in me.

[QUOTE=Rotovia-;12242016There are many things that I believe are wrong without question: infidelity, unfairness and murder..[/QUOTE]
Infidelity?

Infidelity?

Well, at least he's not saying that the pain of being cheated on is somehow equivalent to the pain of being raped, like Hotrodia did a couple of weeks ago.

From one of my ambiguous, amateurish, and immature attempts at writing poetry: "our sentience is a monstrous joke/and it is a silent monster to appreciate it". Without a God and with little or nothing to seperate us from animals, the only meaning that we can assign to this universe is the meaning we create as people. Thus, there is no reason why there SHOULD be a universal moral code, and consequently there probably is not a universal code out there to be found

Well, Kirkegaard said the same thing, but he believed in God. Personally, I think the entire point of religion is that it is personal and meaningful to you; it would be supremely evil if God's sole method of revealing himself to mankind is through organized religions, free of thought and of conscience. Meaning and morality have to be created by us, because that is our responsibility as free beings.

So if there is a God who is perfectly good, morality can be defined in an objective way. Good = that which pleases God, Bad = that which displeases God.

That's circular, and useless for determining what is actually good.

Well, at least he's not saying that the pain of being cheated on is somehow equivalent to the pain of being raped, like Hotrodia did a couple of weeks ago.
I missed that. Sucks.

<snip>

The famous saying, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" cannot be misinterpreted, and yet many people fail to read into it. We choose to learn from the saying that we should treat others the way we wish to be treated in the hope that we will be treated as we would deem fair. Look only a little deeper and it is plain to see the selfishness of this 'moral'. We use this 'moral' to help ourselves gain security...not to ensure the security of others, but we con ourselves into believing that we follow this code of behaviour to the benefit of those around us. It is completely contradictory of the commonly accepted definition of a 'moral' that I explained above.

Therefore to conclude, it is completely irrelevant who is deemed "moral" and who is deemed "immoral" because morality is ONE BIG LIE we use to make ourselves feel better .

I don't think you're giving people credit for some subtlety. It's an injunction to act in other's interests, couched in terms of self-interest. Self-interest is simply taken for granted (though perhaps it shouldn't be -- there's plenty of fuckups in the world).
If self-interest didn't exist, it's hard to imagine benevolence. Why would I want to make others happy, if they didn't want to be happy themselves? It would just be some kind of power-trip.

Look: if I resolve "I will try to treat others well, in the hope that I will be well-treated myself" and you resolve "I will treat others well because I want them to be happy" we'll get along fine. We may even be doing the exact same things, unlike the person who is motivated by an urge to hurt other people or make them unhappy.

<snip>...we are all selfish because we were born that way...it's the instinct to survive - dog eat dog. Society is a mess...and it keeps getting worse because we cannot admit to ourselves our true intentions...and therefore we cannot change our true intentions...

I'm sorry if you can't stand my pessimistic outlook but I don't choose to be this way...I just think logically.

However, you rely on some pretty strong 'moral' words to explain why you're right and everyone else is wrong. If your case is so logical, why not drop the invective? We aren't all idiots here, you may have noticed.

There may well be something in what you say, but I have a little trouble understanding your position (apart from the "I'm against it" part) because of all the vaguely-defined and emotive terms like 'lie' and 'tainted' and 'pretend.'

Perhaps you could outline how society could be structured to rely on nothing but self-interest. Would there be laws? Police and judges?

That's circular, and useless for determining what is actually good.

I'm an agnostic/polite atheist, but it seems to me that believers have an image of the 'nature' of God. To them it's not circular.

That's the Golden Rule. It's found in Christianity and almost every other religion too.

yeah, so maybe morality isn't tied to faith after all :p

I really don't understand why people make the assumption that non-religious people are immoral.

We are taught what is acceptable within our society by various methods and sources.

Cultural Relativism.

Further to this, there is an innate understanding of right and wrong.

The title of the OP is Morality in a godless nation - religion has been the cause of much suffering and immorality throughout the world. There are good people and bad people. Religion does not solve this problem.

But is what's acceptable in our society necessarily moral?

If you honestly need religion to tell you how to be a decent human being, then I am deeply sorry for you. You must have had absolutely no good role models whatsoever.

That's not what he was saying.

Now that is naive.

I'll say it again: humans are social animals. Who is and is not deemed "moral" is often amazingly important. "Immoral" people have been burnt at the stake. "Immoral" people are frequently stripped of rights and/or freedoms. "Immorality" is often seen as justification for removing the protection of law from a person or group of people.

Morality isn't a lie at all. Internal morality is as real and honest as the individual chooses to make it, and group morality is a type of contract between members of that group. The fact that there are pragmatic--and often selfish--motives behind morality doesn't make it a lie at all, unless you are naive enough to think that "morality" must be selfless in order to be honest.

If you happen to lie to yourself about it then that's your business, but don't project your foibles onto others.

Your take is along the lines of Aristotelianism, if I'm correct.

globalized thinking isn't a natural thing for us, it's our ability to reason that makes it possible...morality for us was only extended to the hunter gatherer groups we lived in and counted on for our survival...but our numbers increased to point were it became tribal then national and now global...many people still have a problem getting past extending morality past the family group...

I disagree. I think it's moreso the fact that it's near impossible to make a change for the better, on a global scale, that prevents some people from thinking about it. Many people have a problem acting morally toward their own family. Define (your interpretation of) moral for me, can you?

You know that you are acting morally when you act selflessly.

Do unto others as they would have done unto them.

Selflessness isn't necissarily moral, though. After all, it depends on what you think life's purpose is. If you think that your purpose in life is to be happy, then being selfless could potentially take that away from you. And if you are truly "selfless" you can't pick&choose your battles. You have to help, even if it makes you worse off, and anything that damages your life can't be moral, can it?

Every individual will have their own morality, each will break it when they stand to benefit by a different amount nad each will obey when it costs them little enough.
Morality is learnt. Its just that easy.

The problem is that what one individual thinks is moral, can be potentially immoral to another.

For example, take suicide bombers.

There is a question that I play with from time to time, and that question is where should I draw from in determining how to live my life.

i have one, simple, practical answer for you.

the more suffering anyone causes the more there is floating arround,
and the more there is floating arround, the more likely each of us are to suffer from it.

so if you don't want to have to live in a messed up world,
don't mess up the world you have to live in.

i don't mean what any ONE does, GUARANTEES anything
but it IS a statistical function, and that doesn't make it any less real.

=^^=
.../\...

I'm immoral because I wasn't born in a trailer in north america and my girlfriend doesn't have tall hair.
When I have children I plan to prostitute them to strangers for money because I've found out the hard way that no matter how much I steal, it still doesn't boost my income as a professional rapist as much as I'd like.
Well, I'm off to sodomize my neighbors chihuahua with a carved idol. See you around.

http://www.cthulhu.org/cimages/cthulhu_fish_new.gif

Uhh...

I'm engaged to Rotovia, and I can assure you I don't have tall hair, and he sure as hell wasn't born in a trailer in the USA.

&Considering that this forum is about healthy, rational debate with knowledged individuals, your post doesn't really belong here.

Infidelity?

I learnt that the hard way.

Well, at least he's not saying that the pain of being cheated on is somehow equivalent to the pain of being raped, like Hotrodia did a couple of weeks ago.

For some people, it could be.


For a lot of people, it is.

Utilitarianism & Democracy...

Theoretically, a combination of this should be moral, but in reality life isn't that easy. My ethics lean towards both of those philosophies (well, philosophy & socio-political philosophy), and I know that some actions I make aren't moral.

... To be honest, I'm just as confused as you are, but I know that I don't like conventional religion as it is depicted today. The doctrine of many religions (or the "ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix"*) do contain elements which, to me, define what is moral. Good and bad will never be definite, just as religion will never have an absolute definition. Nothing in life will ever be absolutely black & white, and by trying to define morality, we're attempting the impossible. That being said, it's human nature to take on battles we will never win. Sometimes it's easier to take things as they come, and not be hung up on ethics, but I'm a passionate person, and when someone does something I belive is wrong, I let them know. However, they don't always know what they've done is wrong. Sometimes they think they're right. So which one of us is being moral?

...

We've seen the destructions done by theists.
We've also seen the destructions done by atheists.

Having a religion doesn't mean someone be a better person. It depends on the people who embrace them.

Do they think religion is their Final Destination in life?
Or do they think religion is only a Tool to make a better living?

I'm immoral because I wasn't born in a trailer in north america and my girlfriend doesn't have tall hair.
When I have children I plan to prostitute them to strangers for money because I've found out the hard way that no matter how much I steal, it still doesn't boost my income as a professional rapist as much as I'd like.
Well, I'm off to sodomize my neighbors chihuahua with a carved idol. See you around.

http://www.cthulhu.org/cimages/cthulhu_fish_new.gif

Congrats, Bumfook, you've earned yourself your very own post in "Moderation"

Perhaps for your own good, "moderation" should describe how often you post if they all turn out like this one...

For some people, it could be.


For a lot of people, it is.

have you got witnesses who testify that they suffered both, and that the cheating hurt them the most? or is it because you were cheated on, and just can't imagine anything more painful?

I'm not saying being cheated on isn't painful ; just that there are more painful things out there, and I think rape is among them.

There are many things that I believe are wrong without question: infidelity, unfairness and murder.Infidelity is an interesting thing to believe wrong. Basically I see it as form of theft, taking away your possession. Is stealing immoral then? Is right of ownership a moral right? What makes stealing wrong, aside from the laws?

However, morals don't exist in absolute sense: There are no objective moral imperatives that guide everybody, which is very easily proved by looking at people who have committed, certain types of, crimes. Yet, this isn't the whole truth: Most people tend to follow certain basic rules of social communication - Rules that stem from evolutional traits and are encouraged and indoctrinated through culture. Perhaps there's a location in our brain that is coarcely shaped on birth which is then moulded into the final shape during our childhood and teenage years and then practically completed when we reach our twenties.

How does that explain the psycopaths then? Are they inherently evil because Satan tempts them? BS. They are deviants with alternative reproduction method: You all know the stories that brutal killers, unfeeling psycopaths (including certain people in power, stock market gurus, casanovas, etc..) and celebrities/rock stars get laid a lot. They attract mates through their behaviour and reputation so their genes get passed along too guaranteeing another generation of thugs (eg. a certain killer here has been married 6 or 7 times while doing time). Yes, I know that genes, especially those of a single parent, are not definitive nor lead absolutely to certain type of individual, infact some of those genetical traits can very well be latent and reappear generations away - However, the immoral traits get carried into the future only because it's a form of 'winning strategy' (ie. breeding scheme) and might even carry a benefit for the human race in the long run. Heck, it could be a standard mutation or acquired deficiency too, instead of a passed over genetical trait.

Few newsbits that relate to altruism (originally from 22 Jan 07):
http://www.health24.com/news/Mind_Psychology/1-930,38993.asp
http://reports.discoverychannel.ca/servlet/an/discovery/1/20070123/070123_discovery_giving_brain_study/20070123?hub=DiscoveryReport

Infidelity is an interesting thing to believe wrong. Basically I see it as form of theft, taking away your possession. Is stealing immoral then? Is right of ownership a moral right? What makes stealing wrong, aside from the laws?


Do you really own your partner though?

I'm new in town so I thought I'd start off by posting in a nice basic, controversy-free thread for my first time out, that way...oh darn. Um...a-hem. I'm new in town so i thought I'd start out by picking a thread to post on that is just chock full of hot button ideas that get people all heated up and full of moral (religious or otherwise) outrage so I can tell straight away who's going to just hate me.:D

Myself, I grew up vaguely religious, which is not entirely my fault cause I was raised in a small occasionally vague sort-it-out-for-yourself sect of Christianity. Just to make life a bit more confusing I was raised by a sociologist of religion so the idea that there is one true anything religiously speaking just didn't come up in my house.

One of the things that's always bugged me is the notion that there is one big umbrella of Judeo-Christian morality. Not even the fact that we all have the same basic top ten rules for behavior has led to any agreement on moral grounds. Take "Thou shalt not kill" for example. If history has taught us anything it's that this particular commandment seems to be open to a lot of interpretation by even the most devout practitioners of sects in both Judaism and Christianity.

Whether or not a person is religious is just one part of a myriad of factors that make up a person's moral being. There's upbringing, social class, peer influence, larger society patterns, and a dash of personal experience and choice all burbling together to affect one's morality.

we all have the same basic moral laws without a need for a god...a billion of the worlds people are non theists, how is it they are not all raping, stealing,murdering and generally running amuck without divinely inspired laws?....as societies become more complex so do their rules that is why there are variations of laws but the basic rules are the same everywhere...

Not really. There are cultures that still think it's morally okay to have sex with one's eleven-year old bride, to beat your wife, have more than one wife, eat your wife metaphorically, eat your wife literally, kill for profit, kill for God, or kill cause that guy just won't get off your front lawn. All of those behaviors would fall under the category of basic rules of behavior but still represent some mighty big swings on the moral compass.

But is what's acceptable in our society necessarily moral?

Fair point. Tyranny of the majority doesn't necessarily make a thing right or wrong, especially when the majority keeps changing it's mind.

We've seen the destructions done by theists.
We've also seen the destructions done by atheists.

Having a religion doesn't mean someone be a better person. It depends on the people who embrace them.

Do they think religion is their Final Destination in life?
Or do they think religion is only a Tool to make a better living?

Now that's speaking to my condition!

Do you really own your partner though?You don't, however you consider infidelity - or if the partner changes to another one - a loss. And not destructive loss, like say a fire or death, but a form of theft - Now someone else is (also) enjoying from his or her companionship.

For some people, it could be.


For a lot of people, it is.

I'm not going to get into just how stupid that argument is again, as it's been handled once already, but it's insulting to rape victims to suggest they're equivalent in any way.

I'm not going to get into just how stupid that argument is again, as it's been handled once already, but it's insulting to rape victims to suggest they're equivalent in any way.It can be because it's subjective - And there are, gasp, different kinds of rapes.

It can be because it's subjective - And there are, gasp, different kinds of rapes.

Bullshit. Rape involves the invasion of a person's body by another against his or her will, and there's usually some violence involved. Infidelity involves a breach of trust between two people. There is no equivalence between the two.

Bullshit. Rape involves the invasion of a person's body by another against his or her will, and there's usually some violence involved. Infidelity involves a breach of trust between two people. There is no equivalence between the two.

seconded.

Bullshit. Rape involves the invasion of a person's body by another against his or her will, and there's usually some violence involved. Infidelity involves a breach of trust between two people. There is no equivalence between the two.There is no equivalence between the two.

However experiences are subjective: Some might consider infidelity, theft of spouse, the worst form of mindfuck imaginable - The feeling of impotence and shame-rage are among the strongest emotions you can encounter: It can lead to completely irrational behavior, mental shutdown and killing spree/murders.

On the other hand, a victim of rape might not even remember (s)he was raped or might qualify as a rape victim only because of a law techincality.

There is no equivalence between the two.

However experiences are subjective: Some might consider infidelity, theft of spouse, the worst form of mindfuck imaginable - The feeling of impotence and shame-rage are among the strongest emotions you can encounter: It can lead to completely irrational behavior, mental shutdown and killing spree/murders.

On the other hand, a victim of rape might not even remember (s)he was raped or might qualify as a rape victim only because of a law techincality.

I think you'd find that the cheated spouse would consider it the worst thing imaginable, until he/she got raped. as for not being conscious at the time of the rape, it can still hurt when you wake up, and it carries at least as much shame/impotence/rage as being cheated on, and then some.

I think you'd find that the cheated spouse would consider it the worst thing imaginable, until he/she got raped.This might very well be true.

Or not - People are individuals and take things differently.

it can still hurt when you wake upOr not.

it carries at least as much shame/impotence/rage as being cheated on, and then some.Not for all and not under all circumstances.

For example, honor killings: Women are killed in certain cultures because they were raped. More specifically they are killed because the rape is seen as a form of infidelity which brings so much shame unto the family that the woman must be killed (especially in cultures where there's a 'strong ownership' of woman by a man).

You have to understand I agree that in vast majority of cases rape is much, much worse - however, cultural background, socioeconomical background, genetics and current situation in life are factors that can affect the situation in such a way that the normal relation is effectively reversed.

I'm not going to get into just how stupid that argument is again, as it's been handled once already, but it's insulting to rape victims to suggest they're equivalent in any way.

Umm, considering I've BEEN raped, I think I have the right to say what I have said.

have you got witnesses who testify that they suffered both, and that the cheating hurt them the most? or is it because you were cheated on, and just can't imagine anything more painful?

I'm not saying being cheated on isn't painful ; just that there are more painful things out there, and I think rape is among them.

Have you been raped?


I've never been cheated on, but I have known those who have, and I know that for SOME people, it hurt them worse than anything in the world (emotionally).

Infidelity is an interesting thing to believe wrong. Basically I see it as form of theft, taking away your possession.
That's only true if you own your partner. And if you are the sort of person who believes that you can own other human beings, I'd support anybody who was unfaithful to you.

Infidelity is about your partner breaking a vow that they made to you. It is not theft, because your partner is not taking away anything that belongs to you. You do not own your partner's body. You do not own their mind. If they choose to use their body or mind to do things you don't like, that may be a breach of trust or a violation of vows, but it is not theft because neither their mind nor their body belongs to you.

Bullshit. Rape involves the invasion of a person's body by another against his or her will, and there's usually some violence involved. Infidelity involves a breach of trust between two people. There is no equivalence between the two.

There is no equivalence between the two, you are correct. All I'm saying is that for some people there is nothing that they'd find emotionally more painful than being cheated on, just as for some people being cheated on would be nothing compared to being raped.

That's only true if you own your partner. And if you are the sort of person who believes that you can own other human beings, I'd support anybody who was unfaithful to you.It's not about actually owning a person - It's about perceived ownership.

Infidelity is about your partner breaking a vow that they made to you.What vow? Infidelity can exist even outside of formalized relationship.

If they choose to use their body or mind to do things you don't like, that may be a breach of trust or a violation of vows, but it is not theft because neither their mind nor their body belongs to you.This is not how some people perceive the affair.

And furthermore, it doesn't go any length into explaining why infidelity is seen as wrong - Why do you need trust or vows that the other person in the relationship won't go around sleeping with everything that moves? Is it not his or her body to do whatever she or he wishes with it - How does his or her infidelity physically hurt you (possible STDs aside)?

There is a question that I play with from time to time, and that question is where should I draw from in determining how to live my life. Should I follow basic instincts, or what is good for society, or that feeling in my heart, or logic, or what? Those of us who grew up with the church as our compass for moralistic and ethical north find ourselves conflicted and lost.......


Heh I find it odd that you ask where should I obtain my morality from?

As if you have noe and are still trying to form a set of moral principles for your self?

Why not ask instead where has my morality come from? The answer to that would be the time and culture you find yourself living in, and the moral majority, and to some greater or lesser extent your genetic disposition.

Umm, considering I've BEEN raped, I think I have the right to say what I have said.Sure you have the right to say it, and I have the right to say it's stupid. I was molested as a child, and I was cheated on as an adult. The molestation fucked me up way worse than the cheating did. They're not even in the same zip code.

Nazz, I always seem to catch the end of your arguments. I hope it doesn't seem like I'm shadowing you or anything.
Anyway, you've once again amazed (I've said this before).

It's not about actually owning a person - It's about perceived ownership.

Right. And if you perceive ownership of another person, then I don't see why anybody should be faithful to you. (Well, I don't see why anybody should be in a relationship with you in the first place...)


What vow? Infidelity can exist even outside of formalized relationship.

Vows don't have to be "formalized." You can make a commitment to somebody even if you don't sign a legal contract or have a priest mutter over you. My partner and I have chosen to vow that we will be sexually monogamous. That vow is serious business for both of us, even though we haven't signed any legal forms or had some expensive ceremony.


This is not how some people perceive the affair.

Whether or not people "perceive" it that way is irrelevant. A person who "perceives" ownership of another human being is unworthy of relationships in the first place.


And furthermore, it doesn't go any length into explaining why infidelity is seen as wrong - Why do you need trust or vows that the other person in the relationship won't go around sleeping with everything that moves?

Personally, I don't. However, many people require a measure of exclusiveness to feel emotionally secure in their relationship. I don't see anything wrong with that. Everybody is allowed to set what qualify as "deal breakers" for them in any given relationship. If their partner doesn't want to respect those boundaries, then they should end the relationship.

For instance, I require honesty from my partner, even though most lies wouldn't physically harm me in any way. If he does not want to be honest with me, then I reserve the right to end our relationship. If he wishes to continue the relationship, he knows that he must be honest with me. He has "vowed" to be an honest and respectful partner to me.


Is it not his or her body to do whatever she or he wishes with it - How does his or her infidelity physically hurt you (possible STDs aside)?
Whether or not I am physically hurt by their actions is beside the point in this case. I have standards for relationships that extend beyond preventing physical harm. My partner must be honest and respectful, or else I will end the relationship.

Note: none of this has anything to do with me owning my partner, it simply has to do with me owning myself. I reserve the right to remove MYSELF from a relationship if my partner fails to fulfill their part of our mutual "contract." It's not that I own my partner and therefore get to tell them who to fuck, it's that I own MYSELF and get to decide whether I will or will not fuck them.

Have you been raped?

no, I haven't. I haven't been cheated on either. but I know what would hurt the most, and it's not the cheating.

I've never been cheated on, but I have known those who have, and I know that for SOME people, it hurt them worse than anything in the world (emotionally).

I think that it is what they feel in the heat of the moment. I don't believe they'd still feel that way if they were raped.

no, I haven't. I haven't been cheated on either. but I know what would hurt the most, and it's not the cheating.



I think that it is what they feel in the heat of the moment. I don't believe they'd still feel that way if they were raped.

Are we really trying to say which particluar mental anguish is worse?

Whos to know what particular act of cruelty will be the straw that broke the camels back? Surly it depends on the individual. I know victims of rape, and spousual abuse, and child abuse. Some are more fucked up then others, some are actualy kinda okay, but none of them screwed in the head the same, nor for the same reasons.

Right. And if you perceive ownership of another person, then I don't see why anybody should be faithful to you. It's unconscious. Your partner's actions which you don't condone to hurt you, even if you would consider his or her actions outside of the relationship acceptable.

You perceive that you have rights in a relationship, when those rights are only imaginary: You, like you said, don't own your partner - you just perceive your partner as having imperative obligations to you and you're hurt when (s)he doesn't live up to them.
Whether or not people "perceive" it that way is irrelevant. A person who "perceives" ownership of another human being is unworthy of relationships in the first place.You seem keen on limiting your partners behaviour based on your values, or in more cynic terms, you impose limits to your partners' rights based on your needs, ie. you handle him/her as a special kind of property.For instance, I require honesty from my partner, even though most lies wouldn't physically harm me in any way.Lying is bit off topic, though often an element.

If your partner is infidel to you and tells you that he or she likes to sleep with other people...then your partner is telling the truth and being open about his or her behaviour.

On the other hand, why would your partner need to lie to you about having, for example, a one night stand with a stranger? Is it because your partner is/would be scared of your reactions - That you'd leave him/her because no hurt was committed to anyone, except for breaking your imposed rules, your ego, your laws?I have standards for relationships that extend beyond preventing physical harm. My partner must be honest and respectful, or else I will end the relationship.If she or he honestly admits that she or he likes to have sex with strangers. Why wouldn't you *let* him or her continue something that he or she finds pleasing to him- or herself?

I reserve the right to remove MYSELF from a relationship if my partner fails to fulfill their part of our mutual "contract." It's not that I own my partner and therefore get to tell them who to fuck, it's that I own MYSELF and get to decide whether I will or will not fuck them.Yet, if your partner would, so to speak, 'cheat' on you would you be angry towards yourself or your partner or possibly your partner's lover? And why?

There is no cost - or rather it's a low 'cost' affair (risk of STDs) - to you for allowing your partner to sleep with others, yet most of us refuse the notion as absurd. The only rational explanation is ego and perceived ownership: That's my hubby, not yours; He stole my wife!
(Well, I don't see why anybody should be in a relationship with you in the first place...) :rolleyes:

Morality is a tool that helps build social structures, the basis of mankind itself, which predates any religion. Religion did not create morality, but the other way around.

If god bestowed upon us preset conditions for what is right and wrong, then we wouldn't have been kicked out of the Garden of Eden now would we ;)

Free Will or God Given Morality. Take your pick.

Sure you have the right to say it, and I have the right to say it's stupid. I was molested as a child, and I was cheated on as an adult. The molestation fucked me up way worse than the cheating did. They're not even in the same zip code.

For you, maybe. I'm just saying that it's POSSIBLE that for someone it might not be that way. I know that my rape affected me really badly, as did my childhood sexual abuse experiences, and I've never been cheated on, but I think that if my fiance were to tell me he loved another woman or something like that, I would be absolutely devastated, and I would grow to fear men just as much as I used to. I'm not saying that for me, personally, being cheated on is worse than rape, because I've never been cheated on. I'm just saying that it's possible for some individuals.

no, I haven't. I haven't been cheated on either. but I know what would hurt the most, and it's not the cheating.


I don't think you can ever know until it happens to you.

I don't think you can ever know until it happens to you.

well then maybe torture isn't so bad after all compared to being cheated on. I can't judge for that either, since I was never tortured. :rolleyes:

well then maybe torture isn't so bad after all compared to being cheated on. I can't judge for that either, since I was never tortured. :rolleyes:

Exactly.

I'm so glad you understand now.

It's unconscious. Your partner's actions which you don't condone to hurt you, even if you would consider his or her actions outside of the relationship acceptable.

Yes, it would hurt me for my partner to betray my trust. That has nothing to do with "owning" my partner, and everything to do with viewing my partner as an independent adult who I have a relationship with. Because I care for my partner a great deal, he can hurt me very badly if he chooses to. Being betrayed by a total stranger may be lousy, but it doesn't really hurt that much because they're a stranger to you. Being betrayed by somebody you care about is more painful.


You perceive that you have rights in a relationship, when those rights are only imaginary: You, like you said, don't own your partner - you just perceive your partner as having imperative obligations to you and you're hurt when (s)he doesn't live up to them.

My "rights" in the relationship are not imaginary. My rights are whatever my partner and I agree upon. Beyond that, I have the right to end the relationship at any time and for any reason. None of this is imaginary.

My partner's imperative obligations to me rest with the assumption that he chooses to be with me, and he wishes to continue being in a relationship with me. Since I have the right to end the relationship at any time, he will need to comply with my needs and wants to a certain extent if he wishes to be able to be in a relationship with me. I, of course, have equal obligation to him if I wish to continue our relationship.


You seem keen on limiting your partners behaviour based on your values, or in more cynic terms, you impose limits to your partners' rights based on your needs, ie. you handle him/her as a special kind of property.Lying is bit off topic, though often an element.

Hardly. I simply have standards for who I will and will not choose to be in a relationship with. I choose not to be in relationships with people who lie to me. If my partner wishes a relationship with me, he must refrain from lying. If he wishes to lie then he is of course free to do so; I simply will no longer be involved with him.


If your partner is infidel to you and tells you that he or she likes to sleep with other people...then your partner is telling the truth and being open about his or her behaviour.

Our rule is, "Don't do anything behind you partner's back that you wouldn't want them to find out about." And, when in doubt, talk about it first.

If my partner is interested in having sex with somebody else, he knows that he should tell me about it before he does so. He knows that if he does, he will not be "in trouble" with me at all. He also knows that if he has sex first and confesses later, he WILL be "in trouble." We have mutually agreed to this system. If he chooses not to follow our agreement on this subject, then I end the relationship. I don't own him, but I own me. Similarly, if I choose to violate our agreements then I know he will most likely choose to end our relationship. He owns himself, and does not have to stay in a relationship with me unless he wants to.


On the other hand, why would your partner need to lie to you about having, for example, a one night stand with a stranger? Is it because your partner is/would be scared of your reactions - That you'd leave him/her because no hurt was committed to anyone, except for breaking your imposed rules, your ego, your laws?

My partner does not need to lie to me about having a one-night stand, and he knows it. If he chooses to lie, he knows that I will choose not to be in a relationship with him.

Whether or not you, he, or I believe that I am "hurt" by his infidelity is beside the point. I simply have standards. I make these clearly known to my partner. If he doesn't want to abide by them, then he doesn't have to. Nobody is forcing him to date me.


If she or he honestly admits that she or he likes to have sex with strangers. Why wouldn't you *let* him or her continue something that he or she finds pleasing to him- or herself?

He is welcome to do so. I simply will choose not to be involved with him.

You really seem to think that my partner is entitled to be in a relationship with me, whether or not I want it. That's bizarre. Nobody is entitled to date me, or you, or anybody else. My partner is free to live his life how he chooses. If he wants to share his life with me, he knows there are certain standards that I hold for my partner (just as I know he holds similar standards for his partner). If he ever decides that he doesn't want to live by these standards, he is always free to end our relationship.

It's like how he also knows I will break up with him if, for instance, he decides to start calling me "a worthless sack of shit." It doesn't physically hurt me if he does this. And what if he were to really enjoy it? What if it really pleased him to call me "worthless piece of shit" instead of using my given name? You will, I'm sure, argue that it is unfair of me to break up with him over "ego" of this sort, since it's not physically hurting me. Unfortunately for you and the other would-be abusers, I (like most people) have standards. I will not continue to date somebody who behaves in a way that is unacceptable to me. If they want to go around calling people "worthless piece of shit" then they are free to do so...without me.

Happily, the reason my partner and I are together is because we share virtually the same standards for relationships. We also don't WANT to hurt each other, so it's not really an issue. I don't want to lie to my partner. I don't want to cheat on him. So the fact that his standards prohibit lying and cheating really doesn't bother me in the least, because I have no desire to do either.

You appear to think that the only reason to be good to one's partner is out of fear that you will be caught and punished. I think this pretty much says all that is necessary about your personal ethics. If you desire to go around cheating and lying to your partner, and you only refrain from doing so because you're scared you'll lose access to the pussy, why should anybody bother with you in the first place?


Yet, if your partner would, so to speak, 'cheat' on you would you be angry towards yourself or your partner or possibly your partner's lover? And why?

If my partner chose to be dishonest with me, that would be a betrayal of our relationship. It would also be cowardly. I don't date dishonest cowards.

If my partner and I decided that it was okay for us to have an open relationship, I would be perfectly comfortable with that. I am not possessive about my partner's body. If he desires sex with other people then that is fine, provided that everybody involved is clear on what is going on. I require that all sexual activity be consensual and honest. I wouldn't date somebody who is dishonest with OTHER sexual partners, either, because that shows a lack of character that I find unappealing.


There is no cost - or rather it's a low 'cost' affair (risk of STDs) - to you for allowing your partner to sleep with others, yet most of us refuse the notion as absurd.

I consider the risk of STDs to be worthy of merit. Perhaps you don't. That's fine, because I'm not fucking you and you're not fucking me. My partner and I take STDs seriously, and that is our choice as a couple.


The only rational explanation is ego and perceived ownership: That's my hubby, not yours; He stole my wife!
:rolleyes:
Another perfectly rational explanation is that adult human beings are capable of voicing their personal comfort levels, and are capable of respecting the comfort levels of others. I care about my partner, and I respect the fact that he is not comfortable with me sleeping with other people. He does not believe he "owns" me, he simply knows that he would feel hurt if I choose to be sexually intimate with another person. I don't want to hurt him, so I choose to respect his comfort level.

You appear to believe that physical injury is the only kind of harm that matters in a relationship. You also seem to think that somebody will only choose to be kind and respectful if their partner "owns" them and forces them to behave that way. I believe that these ideas represent a kindergarten mentality that has no place in any adult relationship, romantic or otherwise. If you are not prepared to recognize that your actions can hurt other people in non-physical ways, then you have a lot of growing up to do before you are ready for an adult relationship. That's okay, because we all gotta start somewhere, just please be aware of your limitations and try not to hurt too many people in the mean time.

well then maybe torture isn't so bad after all compared to being cheated on. I can't judge for that either, since I was never tortured. :rolleyes:
Yeah, that's kinda where I'm at with this one.

I've never been given a swirly (which is where you dunk somebody's head in a toilet and then flush it while their head is in there). I've also never had my arm ripped off by a tiger. Yet I am prepared to go out on a limb and wager that one of those two is worse than the other.

I've never been given a swirly (which is where you dunk somebody's head in a toilet and then flush it while their head is in there). I've also never had my arm ripped off by a tiger. Yet I am prepared to go out on a limb and wager that one of those two is worse than the other.

Well, there is the possibility that the toilet is filled with lye or hydrochloric acid rather than water, and there is the possibility that scientists have developed artificial limbs equivalent to biological ones, but all things equal one is definitely worse than the other.

This might very well be true.

Or not - People are individuals and take things differently.

Or not.

Not for all and not under all circumstances.

For example, honor killings: Women are killed in certain cultures because they were raped. More specifically they are killed because the rape is seen as a form of infidelity which brings so much shame unto the family that the woman must be killed (especially in cultures where there's a 'strong ownership' of woman by a man).

You have to understand I agree that in vast majority of cases rape is much, much worse - however, cultural background, socioeconomical background, genetics and current situation in life are factors that can affect the situation in such a way that the normal relation is effectively reversed.

You know, I have to admit that I've changed my thinking a bit on this subject.

It is absolutely true that there are cultures in which rape is pretty much the only form of heterosexual sex, because people are taught that women never like sex or want to have sex, they simply allow it to be done to them because they must. That is only a very, very tiny step away from forced rape.

If you are a woman who lives in a culture where women aren't supposed to ever enjoy sex, and where women are only having sex because they are compelled to do so for various reasons, then being raped might be par for the course for you. You might be raped by your husband on a daily basis.

In that situation, I could see a person feeling that being raped is standard practice while being cheated on is a big deal.

So while I originally took the stance that rape and infidelity should not be equated, allow me to revise that statement:

In my opinion, any culture in which rape and infidelity CAN be equated, or where infidelity is worse than rape, is a deeply fucked up culture. In my opinion, any person who feels that being raped is less traumatic than being cheated on is a person with some deeply fucked up priorities. Their fucked up priorities may be the result of living in a fucked up culture, having a fucked up family, or just being fucked up for some other personal reason. But, regardless, I view their priorities as fucked up, just as I would regard it as fucked up for a person to believe that having an arm ripped off is less serious than getting a swirly.

You know, I have to admit that I've changed my thinking a bit on this subject.

It is absolutely true that there are cultures in which rape is pretty much the only form of heterosexual sex, because people are taught that women never like sex or want to have sex, they simply allow it to be done to them because they must. That is only a very, very tiny step away from forced rape.

If you are a woman who lives in a culture where women aren't supposed to ever enjoy sex, and where women are only having sex because they are compelled to do so for various reasons, then being raped might be par for the course for you. You might be raped by your husband on a daily basis.

In that situation, I could see a person feeling that being raped is standard practice while being cheated on is a big deal. Oh yes there's cultures like that. My better half come from one. It never really hits you how utterly fucked up it is, 'til you have to deal with it. I probably shouldn't write anything like this, but imagine being with a person for whom it's a completely world-shattering event to ask to have sex. Everything becomes so fucked up & weird that I can't even begin to describe it..

It's so sick, wrong.. Horrible.. Makes me want to fucking kill the whole world.

Oh yes there's cultures like that. My better half come from one. It never really hits you how utterly fucked up it is, 'til you have to deal with it. I probably shouldn't write anything like this, but imagine being with a person for whom it's a completely world-shattering event to ask to have sex. Everything becomes so fucked up & weird that I can't even begin to describe it..

It's so sick, wrong.. Horrible.. Makes me want to fucking kill the whole world.
Oddly enough, my lover was brought up to believe a slightly less extreme version of this. He admits that part of him still cannot fully accept that I really enjoy sex, and he sometimes has doubts as to whether I'm just doing it to please him. He knows, rationally, that this is all BS, but he still has these thoughts creep into his mind sometimes.

He grew up being taught that girls never want sex for their own sake, but they do it because it can get them things they really want (like "commitment" or love or money or control over a man). He was taught to view sex as something girls can give or withhold from guys in order to manipulate them, and something that guys try to get from girls at the "cheapest" possible rate. In other words, sex is adversarial all the time: girls are trying to trick guys into giving up as much as possible, while guys are trying to trick girls into having sex while giving the girls as little as possible.

Talk about icky. :(

I don't know how any man could ever love any woman, or any woman a man, if they subscribe to that kind of thinking. That kind of "morality" is so divorced from common respect and human dignity that it boggles the mind.

Oddly enough, my lover was brought up to believe a slightly less extreme version of this. He admits that part of him still cannot fully accept that I really enjoy sex, and he sometimes has doubts as to whether I'm just doing it to please him. He knows, rationally, that this is all BS, but he still has these thoughts creep into his mind sometimes.

He grew up being taught that girls never want sex for their own sake, but they do it because it can get them things they really want (like "commitment" or love or money or control over a man). He was taught to view sex as something girls can give or withhold from guys in order to manipulate them, and something that guys try to get from girls at the "cheapest" possible rate. In other words, sex is adversarial all the time: girls are trying to trick guys into giving up as much as possible, while guys are trying to trick girls into having sex while giving the girls as little as possible.

Talk about icky. :(

I don't know how any man could ever love any woman, or any woman a man, if they subscribe to that kind of thinking. That kind of "morality" is so divorced from common respect and human dignity that it boggles the mind.


Or is that just your cultral morality showing?

Or is that just your cultural morality showing?
The culture I've grown up in is actually much closer to the one my boyfriend grew up in than it is to my personal morality.

Frankly, most people in my society strongly disagree with my beliefs on sex and intimate relationships. The reason I rejected the more commonly accepted moral systems is because I decided that having satisfying and mutually respectful adult relationships was important to me, and I have yet to find any way to have such a relationship under the system that mainstream society suggests. It's really just a pragmatic decision on my part: I can't get what I want by doing things their way, so I do it my way. :D

The culture I've grown up in is actually much closer to the one my boyfriend grew up in than it is to my personal morality.

Frankly, most people in my society strongly disagree with my beliefs on sex and intimate relationships. The reason I rejected the more commonly accepted moral systems is because I decided that having satisfying and mutually respectful adult relationships was important to me, and I have yet to find any way to have such a relationship under the system that mainstream society suggests. It's really just a pragmatic decision on my part: I can't get what I want by doing things their way, so I do it my way. :D

Amen to that!

On a serious note though. I'm a white Englishg born and bred in London bloke. I have a moral system dervied from the timeline I find myself living in, and my culture, and some genetic disposition(as is true I belive for all of us)

Unremarkable you may say, and you'd be correct in that. What is sorta strange though is I'm also a Sikh by religion, and I have come to realise(and I'm quite sure that this will be backed up by white American or Erupean converst to Islam) that we our morals are culturlay predudiced against those not of the same culture.

For example female circumsicion. I think that you will agree it is fucking terrible thing that should be banned world wide.

It is my cultraly dirved morals that make me feel like this. If though you talk to somebody of that culture(and in a lot of cases even the woman) they are outraged that we should try to impose our morals over theirs.

So which is moraly right? Heheh it depends on ones culture I would have to say.

Morality shifts and changes with times and circustances, mainly to suit whoevers in charge at the time, whether its Jesus (Christ), Queen Victoria or Sir George Bush. I think you'll find ancient cultures had very different morals to what is known as acceptable behaviour now. I, for instance, like burnt toast.

Morality shifts and changes with times and circustances, mainly to suit whoevers in charge at the time, whether its Jesus (Christ), Queen Victoria or Sir George Bush. I think you'll find ancient cultures had very different morals to what is known as acceptable behaviour now. I, for instance, like burnt toast.


I agree with you up to a point. It is not the rulers that make the morality for the people. But he morla majority that do it for the rest.

Or is that just your cultral morality showing?Even if it was, what's the problem?

Sure, all cultures needs to be destroyed, but are you seriously suggesting that culture-based morality that dictates the systematic dehumanization of half the population & the systematic crippeling of the emotional life the remainder's, is of equal worth to a cultural morality that sticks to emotional crippeling?Oddly enough, my lover was brought up to believe a slightly less extreme version of this. He admits that part of him still cannot fully accept that I really enjoy sex, and he sometimes has doubts as to whether I'm just doing it to please him. He knows, rationally, that this is all BS, but he still has these thoughts creep into his mind sometimes.Hehe, I know where he's comming from. Most of my life I tried not to get tangled up in relationships with women, exactly because of this. Fucking silly.

But what I was ranting about isn't when people undergo intensive behaviour modification, to the point that they get an insanely distorted perception of the other sex. I was talking about plain & simple dehumanization. The art of turning people into something that isn't people.

Using me as example, there's nothing adversarial about sex in our relationship. It's simply one of the chores, like getting me the paper, fixing me breakfast & so on. Similar to when she's doing the dishes or listening to me bitch about work, she's supposed to feign polite interest while I do my thing, but if she's enjoying it, she's fucking evil & depraved, and at most fit for selling her body on the street (not that I don't think that'd be a hell of a lot more dignified), but more properly; only fit for getting kicked the fuck out of human society.

Going against this is thought-crime of a scope I, after having lived with this for a long time, can't even begin to fathom. I suppose it's on par with how I'd feel about eating a newborn baby. It's simply horrendous.

The above in no way describes our actual relationship, just how it's 'supposed' to be. Sadly the woman I love has been subjected to such extensive & massive behaviour modification that she has enormous problems with being a living, thinking, sovereign human being. I'm quite sure I can't convey what I'm talking about. In fact, I'm glad I can't. It's too fucking horrendous. The quiet, painless, certain stripping away of all that makes a person a person. It's vile.

But what I was ranting about isn't when people undergo intensive behaviour modification, to the point that they get an insanely distorted perception of the other sex. I was talking about plain & simple dehumanization. The art of turning people into something that isn't people.

I think that dehumanization of certain groups of people is at the heart of most "immorality." At least if you're working with something close to my definition of morality. It's always about justifying your actions because the person/people you are hurting isn't "like you" or is somehow not worthy of being treated respectfully and honorably.

To tie back in with the OP, I have never seen any evidence that religion makes people less likely to engage in this dehumanization. Indeed, religions often encourage followers to see non-followers as less human. Once you've done that, it doesn't really matter if your religion specifically tells people to hurt others...they've pretty much thrown open the door on hurting non-believers by reducing them to a less-human status.

I think that dehumanization of certain groups of people is at the heart of most "immorality." At least if you're working with something close to my definition of morality. It's always about justifying your actions because the person/people you are hurting isn't "like you" or is somehow not worthy of being treated respectfully and honorably.

To tie back in with the OP, I have never seen any evidence that religion makes people less likely to engage in this dehumanization. Indeed, religions often encourage followers to see non-followers as less human. Once you've done that, it doesn't really matter if your religion specifically tells people to hurt others...they've pretty much thrown open the door on hurting non-believers by reducing them to a less-human status.

That was the basis for the way the Spanish treated the native Americans, and for the way pretty much everyone treated the people of Africa--white man's burden was based almost completely on religious belief.

Morality shifts and changes with times and circustances, mainly to suit whoevers in charge at the time, whether its Jesus (Christ), Queen Victoria or Sir George Bush. I think you’ll find ancient cultures had very different morals to what is known as acceptable behaviour now. I, for instance, like burnt toast.
Your like or dislike of burnt toast has nothing to do with morality. It is merely a taste preference.

Morality is influenced by the culture we live in and the people we grow up in, sure. But it is ridiculous to suggest that it is somehow wholly decided by whatever social elite is in charge in time. Morality is an evolved trait in humans, a set of universal mental faculties with different evolutionary origins and functions, and we all have a shared, universal core of morals.

These are influenced heavily by the circumstances we grow up in and the people we live with, but ultimately we all have a identical core: A distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’, a concept of fairness, a desire to help others in need, the notions of rights and obligations, a belief that justice should be applied to wrongdoing, and a condemnation of rape, murder and other various forms of violence.

To take an example from our own NS:G, let’s look at attitudes to abortion. Now, initially the wildly divergent opinions on abortion seem to support a cultural relativism thesis, but if we look further, we find this is nonsense.

Firstly, if morality is relative to culture, then why can two people, living in the same country, in the same culture, with similar backgrounds and upbringings, disagree so vehemently; one supporting abortion, the other opposing it? Cultural relativists would have us believe that these two people could not possibly hold different views, because their culture’s morality would determine their beliefs. This is obviously a ridiculous view.

Secondly, let’s look at the pro and anti-abortion opinions held by the two individuals. Initially the seem so polarised, that no shared morality could be possible. But both individuals hold strong views on the upholding of rights, the application of fairness, and a condemnation of violence. They merely disagree as to what rights need to be upheld and whose rights apply in this situation, what they conceive to be ‘fair’ for the mother, etc.

Differences of belief, whether factual or supernatural, about what constitutes ‘fairness’, ‘wrongdoing’, etc., or variations in economic, material and political circumstances (this is where culture applies) twist our universal, objective moral values. Cultural variations in beliefs (rather than a relativism of moral values), combined with passions and prejudices such as anger, revenge, pride, etc., cloud our core moral values.

Cultural relativism is an outdated and useless theory of morality, and one that can lead to inaction and appeasement of brutal regimes.

Your like or dislike of burnt toast has nothing to do with morality. It is merely a taste preference.

Morality is influenced by the culture we live in and the people we grow up in, sure. But it is ridiculous to suggest that it is somehow wholly decided by whatever social elite is in charge in time.

I agree so far...


Morality is an evolved trait in humans, a set of universal mental faculties with different evolutionary origins and functions, and we all have a shared, universal core of morals.

...oops, but no.

Simple observation informs me that my most fundamental moral principles are, in fact, NOT shared by a great many of my fellow humans. In my own culture, I would even venture to say that the majority of my fellow humans do not share my core moral values.


These are influenced heavily by the circumstances we grow up in and the people we live with, but ultimately we all have a identical core: A distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’, a concept of fairness, a desire to help others in need, the notions of rights and obligations, a belief that justice should be applied to wrongdoing,

So far none of this actually has to do with a shared moral code, it just means that we all have some concept of morals (even if our concepts are radically different).


and a condemnation of rape, murder and other various forms of violence.

Plenty of humans, and plenty of human cultures, condone or encourage rape, murder, and violence under a variety of circumstances. Hell, the idea that it's wrong to rape a woman because she's a real-live person is a relatively new concept in Western civilization.


To take an example from our own NS:G, let’s look at attitudes to abortion. Now, initially the wildly divergent opinions on abortion seem to support a cultural relativism thesis, but if we look further, we find this is nonsense.

Firstly, if morality is relative to culture, then why can two people, living in the same country, in the same culture, with similar backgrounds and upbringings, disagree so vehemently; one supporting abortion, the other opposing it? Cultural relativists would have us believe that these two people could not possibly hold different views, because their culture’s morality would determine their beliefs. This is obviously a ridiculous view.

Yes, but it's also a view that (as far as I know) isn't actually held by most people who believe in cultural relativism.

Cultural relativism is the notion that an individual's beliefs and activities should be interpreted in terms of his or her own culture. In other words, you take a person's abortion stance and you put it in the context of the culture they live in.

This absolutely doesn't mean that one should assume that each person's beliefs are 100% the result of the culture they live it. It simply is an argument for the importance of context.

Cultural relativists will most often be absolutely willing to agree that two people can live in the same culture and yet reach different stances on various issues. This is because cultural relativism doesn't preclude the recognition of individual personalities and experiences as factors in shaping a person's beliefs and activities.

Secondly, let’s look at the pro and anti-abortion opinions held by the two individuals. Initially the seem so polarised, that no shared morality could be possible. But both individuals hold strong views on the upholding of rights, the application of fairness, and a condemnation of violence. They merely disagree as to what rights need to be upheld and whose rights apply in this situation, what they conceive to be ‘fair’ for the mother, etc.

Differences of belief, whether factual or supernatural, about what constitutes ‘fairness’, ‘wrongdoing’, etc., or variations in economic, material and political circumstances (this is where culture applies) twist our universal, objective moral values. Cultural variations in beliefs (rather than a relativism of moral values), combined with passions and prejudices such as anger, revenge, pride, etc., cloud our core moral values.

So, these "universal moral values" have nothing to do with what we define as "fair" or "wrong"? Sounds like the only "universal" is that we all HAVE values of one kind or another. That doesn't mean we have any shared morality at all.


Cultural relativism is an outdated and useless theory of morality, and one that can lead to inaction and appeasement of brutal regimes.
The ideas you are discussing, and which you are labeling as "cultural relativism," are not actually examples of cultural relativism. You are applying that term to beliefs that are not in any way a required part of cultural relativism.

It is a simply and obvious fact that many of the beliefs people think are self-evidently true are, frankly, not. We may think it is self-evident that it's wrong to murder an infant, but there is ample evidence that this value is not one that has been held by all humans or all human societies. We may think it is self-evident that rape is wrong, but there are countless examples of human cultures that did not share that value.

Essentially, I think you'd be hard put to find a single moral value that has always been upheld by every human culture.

Simple observation informs me that my most fundamental moral principles are, in fact, NOT shared by a great many of my fellow humans. In my own culture, I would even venture to say that the majority of my fellow humans do not share my core moral values.
Your fundamental moral values , the ‘metamorality’ which has evolved within humanity, are, I believe, shared by everyone. Your moral beliefs, however, have been shaped by experience, society, upbringing, religious and political views, and many other factors, and indeed are very different to many.

Both yourself and a determined anti-abortion proponent share fundamental moral values that dictats to both of you the ideas that, among other things, individual humans are worth something, and that there are right and wrong actions. Due to factors mentioned above however, you have different mora beliefs about what those right and wrong actions entail.

Another, less personal and more famous example would be that of funeral practices. There are plenty of differences between what cultures believe to be the moral way to dispose of the dead, but we all believe that something must be done with the dead. The ancient Greeks may have burnt their dead and the Callations, a tribe on the Indian sub-continent, ate them, but we all still dispose of our dead ritually in some way.

The differences are in our belief systems, not our values.

Consider a culture in which people believe it is morally wrong to eat cows. Suppose they believe that at death, our souls are transported into the nearest cow, and remain there. Our values are not different with the non-cow eating culture, we simply disagree over belief. We all agree we shouldn’t eat Granny, we just disagree over whether the cow is, or could be, Granny.

So far none of this actually has to do with a shared moral code, it just means that we all have some concept of morals (even if our concepts are radically different).
We all share a moral base, of very loose concepts, including a sense of right and wrong. I’m certainly not arguing that we all think exactly the same, and I realise that neither are you.

Plenty of humans, and plenty of human cultures, condone or encourage rape, murder, and violence under a variety of circumstances. Hell, the idea that it’s wrong to rape a woman because she’s a real-live person is a relatively new concept in Western civilization.
I’m not going to start debating this, as I’m not an authority on the subject, but evidence from anthropologists and psychologists (including Donald Brown, who compiled a list of Human Universals (http://condor.depaul.edu/~mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm); traits , including some morals, that appear in all human societies, past and present) suggests that rape appears in all societies, as well as condemnation of rape.

Cultural relativism is the notion that an individual’s beliefs and activities should be interpreted in terms of his or her own culture. In other words, you take a person’s abortion stance and you put it in the context of the culture they live in.

This absolutely doesn’t mean that one should assume that each person’s beliefs are 100% the result of the culture they live it. It simply is an argument for the importance of context.

Cultural relativists will most often be absolutely willing to agree that two people can live in the same culture and yet reach different stances on various issues. This is because cultural relativism doesn’t preclude the recognition of individual personalities and experiences as factors in shaping a person’s beliefs and activities.

The ideas you are discussing, and which you are labeling as “cultural relativism,” are not actually examples of cultural relativism. You are applying that term to beliefs that are not in any way a required part of cultural relativism.
Cultural relativism, as I understand it, is far more dogmatic than you describe. But, this isn’t a debate on ideology, so I’ll skip over this, if you don’t mind.

So, these “universal moral values” have nothing to do with what we define as “fair” or “wrong”? Sounds like the only “universal” is that we all HAVE values of one kind or another. That doesn’t mean we have any shared morality at all.
Well, to start, the notion that we do indeed have a framework for values is revolutionary to cultural relativists, and other adherents to the blank slate thesis.

If we all share a moral framework, then we can at least begin to see that our arguments are not completely unsolvable. We are all getting at the same idea, we just have different conceptions as to how to best work towards the idea.

It is a simply and obvious fact that many of the beliefs people think are self-evidently true are, frankly, not. We may think it is self-evident that it’s wrong to murder an infant, but there is ample evidence that this value is not one that has been held by all humans or all human societies.
Whereabouts?

Often, infanticide by the Eskimo peoples is cited as an example of how morals are relative. However, I maintain that the Eskimo peoples have no less sense of the importance of the value of a child’s life. We do not approve of such practices, but the fact we don’t commit infanticide does not mean that the Eskimo have any less affection for their children, or that they have less respect for life. Eskimos will always protect their children if the conditions permit. But they live in a harsh environment with low food supplies. Infanticide is not a recognition of fundamentally different values towards children, but a belief that drastic measures are sometimes needed to promote survival.

Incidentally, adoption is the norm for Eskimo families with too many children to support.

Essentially, I think you’d be hard put to find a single moral value that has always been upheld by every human culture.
I’ll reiterate six of them: a distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’, a concept of fairness, a desire to help others in need, the notions of rights and obligations, a belief that justice should be applied to wrongdoing, and a condemnation of rape, murder and other various forms of violence.

Donald Brown’s research into human universals has shown us that concepts, facial expressions, behaviours and overt language are universal to humanity. Is it such a big step to assume ‘metamorality’ is universal too?

I’ll reiterate six of them: a distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’, a concept of fairness, a desire to help others in need, the notions of rights and obligations, a belief that justice should be applied to wrongdoing, and a condemnation of rape, murder and other various forms of violence.

Donald Brown’s research into human universals has shown us that concepts, facial expressions, behaviours and overt language are universal to humanity. Is it such a big step to assume ‘metamorality’ is universal too?

The problem with those six universals as they're listed above is that they're so abstract so as to defy any reasonable definition, and in the case of the last one, loaded with exceptions when it comes to the other.

The problem with those six universals as they’re listed above is that they’re so abstract so as to defy any reasonable definition, and in the case of the last one, loaded with exceptions when it comes to the other.
Well, no-one’s claiming that we all share an exact moral belief system, or that we all think and act in the same way. As I said above, the mere fact that we share some moral framework is a massive blow to the blank slate proponents who still plague modern Western society.

Your fundamental moral values , the ‘metamorality’ which has evolved within humanity, are, I believe, shared by everyone. Your moral beliefs, however, have been shaped by experience, society, upbringing, religious and political views, and many other factors, and indeed are very different to many.

So what is shared is the human capacity to make moral judgments, even if the judgments that are reached are completely and totally different?

That's not shared universal morality, that's just shared capacity to make moral evaluations.


Both yourself and a determined anti-abortion proponent share fundamental moral values that dictats to both of you the ideas that, among other things, individual humans are worth something, and that there are right and wrong actions. Due to factors mentioned above however, you have different mora beliefs about what those right and wrong actions entail.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. There is no universal morality, just a pretty much universal capacity to make moral judgments (whatever those might be).


Another, less personal and more famous example would be that of funeral practices. There are plenty of differences between what cultures believe to be the moral way to dispose of the dead, but we all believe that something must be done with the dead. The ancient Greeks may have burnt their dead and the Callations, a tribe on the Indian sub-continent, ate them, but we all still dispose of our dead ritually in some way.

Untrue. Many of us engage in no ritual when disposing of our dead.


The differences are in our belief systems, not our values.

Consider a culture in which people believe it is morally wrong to eat cows. Suppose they believe that at death, our souls are transported into the nearest cow, and remain there. Our values are not different with the non-cow eating culture, we simply disagree over belief. We all agree we shouldn’t eat Granny, we just disagree over whether the cow is, or could be, Granny.

Sounds like our values are quite different in many ways. We happy to agree on the value of non-Granny-eating, but we differ on the value of eating cows. We differ in how we value the lives of cows.


We all share a moral base, of very loose concepts, including a sense of right and wrong. I’m certainly not arguing that we all think exactly the same, and I realise that neither are you.

Name the exact concepts that you are referring to. Is there any concept whatsoever beyond the simple concept that there IS right and wrong?

Because even then, you'd be incorrect. There are plenty of people who DON'T believe in right and wrong.


I’m not going to start debating this, as I’m not an authority on the subject, but evidence from anthropologists and psychologists (including Donald Brown, who compiled a list of Human Universals (http://condor.depaul.edu/~mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm); traits , including some morals, that appear in all human societies, past and present) suggests that rape appears in all societies, as well as condemnation of rape.

Condemnation of rape absolutely does not appear in every culture. There are current modern cultures in which rape is condoned or encouraged under a variety of circumstances. You don't need to look at anthropological research to see that.


Cultural relativism, as I understand it, is far more dogmatic than you describe. But, this isn’t a debate on ideology, so I’ll skip over this, if you don’t mind.

"Ideology"? I'm just talking about what the term "cultural relativism" actually refers to. No matter how "dogmatic" somebody is about it, "cultural relativism" still refers to the belief that a person's beliefs and actions should be put into the context of their culture. It simply doesn't include a lot of the stuff you were talking about.


Well, to start, the notion that we do indeed have a framework for values is revolutionary to cultural relativists, and other adherents to the blank slate thesis.

Absolutely false.

The "blank slate" theory is that we don't start out at birth with some biologically-preprogrammed morality. This is quite easily verified by using studies of identical twins reared apart, among other things. It's also patently obvious to anybody who has a rudimentary understanding of human neurobiology, since human young are not neurologically capable of making moral judgments until years after birth, and external factors have been conclusively demonstrated to have radical impacts on the development of the areas which are primarily responsible for moral judgments.

However, this doesn't mean we have no framework for values. Of course we do. We have our own drives, personalities, and pragmatic goals. We have our culture, our society, our family and friends...we have tons of sources for our "framework."

We also have the capacity for empathy, which tends to guide a lot of people in their moral evaluations.


If we all share a moral framework, then we can at least begin to see that our arguments are not completely unsolvable. We are all getting at the same idea, we just have different conceptions as to how to best work towards the idea.

The problem is, in many cases we aren't getting at the same idea. So it's not going to help if we assume that we are.


Whereabouts?

Just do a quick search for "infanticide" and you can find plenty of examples. Many cultures believe that it's okay to kill infants that are born with deformities, or infants that are the wrong gender, or infants that are believed to be "possessed," or simply infants that the family does not want or cannot afford to support.


Often, infanticide by the Eskimo peoples is cited as an example of how morals are relative. However, I maintain that the Eskimo peoples have no less sense of the importance of the value of a child’s life.

Whether or not they value a child's life is beside this point. The fact remains that some cultures find it morally appropriate to murder infants. Other cultures do not.


We do not approve of such practices, but the fact we don’t commit infanticide does not mean that the Eskimo have any less affection for their children, or that they have less respect for life. Eskimos will always protect their children if the conditions permit. But they live in a harsh environment with low food supplies. Infanticide is not a recognition of fundamentally different values towards children, but a belief that drastic measures are sometimes needed to promote survival.

Wow, look at that. You are a cultural relativist.


I’ll reiterate six of them: a distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’, a concept of fairness, a desire to help others in need, the notions of rights and obligations, a belief that justice should be applied to wrongdoing, and a condemnation of rape, murder and other various forms of violence.

The first five are not moral values, they are simply the presence of morality and/or empathy. The third is questionable, since many people and some cultures do not particularly believe in helping others in need, or only believe in doing so under particular circumstances. The sixth is flat out false, as I've already pointed out.


Donald Brown’s research into human universals has shown us that concepts, facial expressions, behaviours and overt language are universal to humanity. Is it such a big step to assume ‘metamorality’ is universal too?
Yes.

The fact that human beings almost always develop the capacity to make moral judgments does not in any way require that the resultant moral judgments are determined by some species-determined common morality.

Moral values =/= moral beliefs.

We share moral values, we differ in our moral beliefs.

So what is shared is the human capacity to make moral judgments, even if the judgments that are reached are completely and totally different?

That’s not shared universal morality, that’s just shared capacity to make moral evaluations.

Yeah, that’s what I’m saying. There is no universal morality, just a pretty much universal capacity to make moral judgments (whatever those might be).
I’d argue, and have been, that on top of a universal capacity to make moral judgments, we all share a core set of moral values, which act as a frameworrk for our varying moral beliefs.

Untrue. Many of us engage in no ritual when disposing of our dead.
Really? I don’t know anyone who leaves the dead just lying where they dropped. Ritual does not have to be spiritual. The mere act of disposing of the body is ritual.

Sounds like our values are quite different in many ways. We happy to agree on the value of non-Granny-eating, but we differ on the value of eating cows. We differ in how we value the lives of cows.
You and I may hold different beliefs on the morally correct things to eat, but we each posses a moral value that tells us there are morally good and bad things to eat

Name the exact concepts that you are referring to. Is there any concept whatsoever beyond the simple concept that there IS right and wrong?
The ‘simple’ concept that there is a right and wrong has massive implications. The concepts I am referring to are the sic I’ve reiterated.

Because even then, you’d be incorrect. There are plenty of people who DON’T believe in right and wrong.
Name one, or point me towards someone. There are individual, ammoralists, who refuse to acknowledge right and wrong, and those psychopaths who cannot tell the difference. But even the ammoralist is simply refusing to go along with right and wrong, rather than refuting the possibility of wrong acts.

Condemnation of rape absolutely does not appear in every culture. There are current modern cultures in which rape is condoned or encouraged under a variety of circumstances. You don’t need to look at anthropological research to see that.
As I said, rape appears in all societies. There may be social practices in some cultures that are essentially rape, but other forms of rape will be proscribed. For example, there may be societies in which women are forced into relationships and raped by their partners, but the rape of someone elses wife will be condemned. Some forms of rape appear in all societies. Some form of condemnation of some forms of rape also appear in all societies.

“Ideology”? I’m just talking about what the term “cultural relativism” actually refers to. No matter how “dogmatic” somebody is about it, “cultural relativism” still refers to the belief that a person’s beliefs and actions should be put into the context of their culture. It simply doesn’t include a lot of the stuff you were talking about.
I disagree. Cultural relativism is the position that an individuals morality is defined by the culture they were brought up in. Moral relativism can be split into three camps.

Firstly, descriptive moral relativism, the empirical claim that different cultures and societies have varying moral values, often in conflict with other cultures

Secondly normative moral relativism, the view that morally judgements of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ are only feasible within the context of the traditions and practices of cultures. ‘Good’ is merely what society deems to be ‘good’.

Thirdly, metaethical moral relativism, the view that the within the moral sphere, objective, universal judgements are impossible. Thus a moral principle can only be formulated properly by attaching a relativist clause to it.

The “blank slate” theory is that we don’t start out at birth with some biologically-preprogrammed morality.
more than that, the blank slate is the position that we are born without any framework, moral or not, and rely on our senses alone; the idea that there is no human nature.

Even though you’d be hard-pressed to find a pure blank slate proponent, the idea that we have little or no human nature informs much of modern Western society, including our education and judicial systems.

Just do a quick search for “infanticide” and you can find plenty of examples. Many cultures believe that it’s okay to kill infants that are born with deformities, or infants that are the wrong gender, or infants that are believed to be “possessed,” or simply infants that the family does not want or cannot afford to support.

Whether or not they value a child’s life is beside this point. The fact remains that some cultures find it morally appropriate to murder infants. Other cultures do not.
And you honestly believe that the individuals in these cultures have a lesser respect for a child’s life, or that the mothers in that society have less affection for their children than we do?

Wow, look at that. You are a cultural relativist.
No, I believe culture has some part to play in determining our moral beliefs, based on a universal framework of moral values.

The first five are not moral values, they are simply the presence of morality and/or empathy. The third is questionable, since many people and some cultures do not particularly believe in helping others in need, or only believe in doing so under particular circumstances. The sixth is flat out false, as I’ve already pointed out.
The very fact we distinguish right and wrong actions is a moral value, otherwise where does that place the ammoralist? Similarly, “fairness” is a moral value, as is a concept of justice.

Again and again you confuse moral beliefs and moral values. You say yourself that people may only help others ‘under certain circumstances’. That is their moral belief.

I take issue with your rejection of the sixth, see above.

Even if it was, what's the problem?

Sure, all cultures needs to be destroyed, but are you seriously suggesting that culture-based morality that dictates the systematic dehumanization of half the population & the systematic crippeling of the emotional life the remainder's, is of equal worth to a cultural morality that sticks to emotional crippeling?

Shit man I wasn't sugesting anything. Throw away comment and all that.

What I would point out though is your sense of what is right and wrong is only there because of your culture, time line, and genetic disposition.

When it comes to OBJECTIVE morality there is no such thing. So any JUDGEMENT call on the relative rights or wrongs of a belife is purley SUBJECTIVE, so ultmatly you have no right whatso ever to tell anoybody not of your culture what they should belive is right.

Bottle, as you can probably tell from my rather brief responses to your last post, I’m short of time. I need to get away, but I’ll check this later on/tomorrow.

Have a good day/night/whatever period of time you're currently in.

My rights are whatever my partner and I agree upon.This isn't entirely true. Your rights are what you agree upon, your partners rights are what he or she agrees upon - These perceived rights might not correlate to the other half's percieved obligations.

You talk about rights, even if they're actually obligations you present to your partner.Since I have the right to end the relationship at any time, he will need to comply with my needs and wants to a certain extent if he wishes to be able to be in a relationship with me.Indeed, you exert psychological power to get your partner to act according to your imposed rules of behaviour.You really seem to think that my partner is entitled to be in a relationship with me, whether or not I want it.No, not at all. Threat of leaving and thus hurting the other half of the relationship is a key source of power (along with physical and mental..well..abuse, even though that's not entirely the word I'm looking for).And what if he were to really enjoy it? What if it really pleased him to call me "worthless piece of shit" instead of using my given name? You will, I'm sure, argue that it is unfair of me to break up with him over "ego" of this sort, since it's not physically hurting me.I find mental abuse to be abhorrent, probably even more so than an occassional slap.

However, why would you consider sleeping around - if there was little cause to fear STDs and you'd be well aware of it - as a psychological insult, mental abuse? Why do you, so to speak, deny rights from your partner in order to please yourself?You appear to believe that physical injury is the only kind of harm that matters in a relationshipAppearances can be deceptive.You also seem to think that somebody will only choose to be kind and respectful if their partner "owns" them and forces them to behave that way.Well, you yourself testified that you'd be willing to react in uncompromising way (ie. leave) in order to make your partner obey your rules.I believe that these ideas represent a kindergarten mentality that has no place in any adult relationship, romantic or otherwise.Most Abrahamic religions (one notable exception possibly being Islam), and other ancient cultures, defined a wife (or wives, slaves) more or less as a property and/or under the supervision of their husbands and adultery (usually only applied to married wives) was considered a(kin to an) aggravated theft.

My point is that my view has strong cultural background and with the rise of feminism and equal rights of women it has also begun to work the other way round too in relationships: Perceived ownership has become an equal right - You yourself said you'd rather walk than be with a partner that acts against your will in terms of owning his or her sexuality.If you are not prepared to recognize that your actions can hurt other people in non-physical waysI consider strong mental hurt to be equal to, or even stronger than, strong physical hurt.

I'm only questioning - from a 'disinterested third person viewpoint' - why we find a partner who is sleeping around - or even more extremely, a partner who leaves you for another person/other reason with no other economical or physical hurt - psychologically extremely offensive, why the need to own a partners sexuality even if the partner in question would still be in love with you (assuming mutual love is still a factor in the [ex-]partnership)?