pop morality

[Crossless2.0]

My guiding sense of morality is the so-called (by Christians no less) 'Silver Rule', as opposed to the so-called Golden Rule because I find the negative wording of the sentiment underlying both to be more flexible a tool than the positively worded formulation found in the NT. Now in what possible respect is that "pop morality" since it is millennia old?

I know this Pop Morality trope of yours is one of your favorite hobby horses, and you seem to believe it applies to anyone who doesn't, for example, accept the Bible as normative. However, it misses the mark. You once sent me a PM in which you suggested that my embracing gay rights was an example of Pop Morality. I knew then that a response was pointless since you had already made up your mind that it couldn't be otherwise. But I'll respond here and now. I graduated from High School in 1985. In my senior-year civics class, we were assigned to present a speech to the class arguing in favor of a "controversial" position. I chose for my topic "Marriage Should be Legal for Homosexuals" which proved by a wide margin to be the most controversial subject presented. Now, not that it should matter in the least, but I -- a heterosexual male -- had no personal, self-serving interest in the outcome of the question. I chose my stance based on (1) the law should be applied equally -- i.e., a government license (as such, a secular license) should not be denied to one group of people based on others' disgust or religious bigotry, and (2) such discrimination violates the basic moral insight that one should avoid doing to others that which one finds painful or ethically objectionable. 1985, if you recall, was a time when gay marriage wasn't even on anyone's radar as a live issue. Was my advocacy of this position an example of 'Pop Morality' or was it prescience on my part? The gasps of disbelief among my classmates (not to mention my teacher's reaction: "Well, that certainly was controversial; I wouldn't hold my breath to see that happen in my lifetime if I were you") hardly suggests to me that I was toeing some line of popular morality or political correctness.

The Silver Rule is not an "objective" moral standard by any means, but for people who aren't sociopathic or hypocritically self-serving it provides a decent rough-and-ready standard by which one's actions can be evaluated.

Your silver rule is just another form of train empathy that you borrowed from Christianity. I'm asking if one abandons God/God's righteousness completely what is left to return them to center? what is to anchor someone/you if society sets it's sights say on Children as being sexually viable partners? I asked someone   (red letters are used to spell his name) this question and got no response, so I will ask you since you seem froggy.

Lets say in a few years, while in search of the ever illusive 'gay gene' a pedophile gene is found.. a gene that when active makes certain people only sexually attracted to children. then another scientific break through occurs when mapping brain wave activity that states that children as young as 10 have the mental capacity to be completely responsible for any and all sexual activity, but only if this brain wave/activity is present.. This is studied 100 ways to sunday and low and behold it is true. Children as young as 10 have been properly documented and recorded in having said brain activity...

so then 'Nambla' starts pushing for access to Children but society says no.

Now does your 'silver rule' push you to write another paper putting pedophiles together with children? (in effect Does your 'silver rule state that just because someone can do something they should be allowed?) or are their limits? if so why do homosexuals get a pass and pedophiles don't?

To start with, I'm not aware of any wording in the NT that reflects the 'Silver Rule'. The first I encountered it was by way of Hillel. And before you start beating the drums and insisting that I've latched onto a 'religious' principle, I'd challenge you to explain in what sense the 'Silver Rule' requires belief in a deity. It strikes me as perfectly consistent with a secular viewpoint.

As for your hypothetical, I would need to know how exactly one goes from mapping brain wave activity to determining that the subject is mentally capable of forming mature, responsible choices regarding sexuality -- especially given that the subjects in your hypothetical are pre-pubescent. Needless to say, I'm skeptical that the conditions that might establish a strong correlation could even be defined much less established experimentally. And even at that, you're still a long, long way from establishing a causal relationship. We know that the brains of children continue to grow and develop; that is indisputable. So your goofy hypothetical already flies in the face of what we know about physiology and child development, and you've made no effort to define the parameters by which one could jump to the conclusion that "Brain wave pattern A" = mature/responsible sexual self-awareness. You're grasping at straws.

Regardless, the genetic proclivities of those who might harm others (pedophiles, psychopaths, etc.) don't provide ethical or legal cover -- much as you'd like to lump consenting gay adults into that group, which tells me a hell of a lot more about you than it does anyone else. There is nothing about the Silver Rule that necessitates anyone placing others in harm's way just because predators might have a certain genetic disposition.

The fact that you would even ask, "Does your silver rule state that just because someone can do something they should be allowed or are their limits?" shows that you don't grasp the most basic thing about it.