New religion

[Carnavon]

For now, let me just post briefly on the topic of what each of us mean by the term "morality". We need to first nail down what we're talking about before we can have a rational discussion about it.

When I say, "morality", I refer to our treatment of other sentient beings. Where our behavior impacts other sentients, questions of morality apply. Deception of other beings, disregard for their rights, irresponsibility for your own actions or wantonly causing harm to others is what I mean by "immoral".

You rightly are appalled by child pornography and sexual predators. These industries and people victimize others and are therefore immoral. Having an affair is immoral because it involves deception of the spouse. Are these problems really getting worse or are we just talking about the problems and paying attention now?

Let me cite one example of sexual problems our society is dealing with better now than before: In previous generations, sexual harassment at work was part of life. A woman had little or no recourse if her boss came on to her. Now our society has turned against the practice and punishes men who stalk and harass. The system isn't perfect but it's getting better.

You are rightly worried about teen pregnancy. Sex needs to be done with responsibility. Conservative attempts to cut sex education and instead fund "abstinence only" have been a disaster, causing increases in teen pregnancy and STDs. Conservative attempts to "legislate morality" have wound up causing much harm.

Mixed in with all your concerns is a lot of railing against pornography and other victimless crimes. If no one is harmed, deceived, forced or intimidated, if their rights are not violated, if activities are engaged with responsibility and integrity, it is not immoral.

Yes, I have made a number of posts to address the various issues raised and make it easier (hopefully) to respond.

It seems to me that by your definition you limit what can be described as “moral” issues. “Music, for Plato, was not a neutral amusement. It could express and encourage virtue— nobility, dignity, temperance, chastity. But it could also express and encourage vice—sensuality, belligerence, indiscipline” and hence have a moral character
In your view the criteria is whether it negatively affect others and so in itself it cannot be moral/immoral? Thus if your wife does not find out about you gallivanting with another woman, it is not immoral – it only becomes immoral when she finds out or the lady's husband finds out? You are quite happy with it as long as it does not become known?
The case of sexual harassment being “part of life” is somewhat removed from reality. That the unwanted approaches etc. from others have been a reality, is not disputed. To suggest that it was regarded as “proper” because it was not legislated against, does not reflect the truth. The only change is that there is now legislation dealing specifically with it. (although previously there was always redress possible). Your own argument that legislation had a negative effect proves the point that legislation does not introduce morality.

Long before this legislation was introduced into our country, a really funny character that I worked with once acted inappropriately towards a female employee. He was severely reprimanded (and could have been taken to court under old legislation under “”crimen injuria”). Legislation being effected does in any case not improve “morality” but just legislate against it. I agree 100% that you cannot legislate morality.

Thank you for your open discussion. Take your time, there is no rush as I suppose both of us are a bit stressed for time.