Morality

[The Industrial Atheist]

Let's take sex without an official contract. That type of sex is enjoyable, allows for more freedom in picking up the partner, go easy on the person's wallet. Confronted with the cons of the possibility of producing a child, and the possibility of hurting a current spouse emotionally to great degrees.

Judging the act as "morally good" or "morally bad" is subjective. Take me: personally; I would never cause misery to a yet-to be born infant; and ruin his/her childhood through making them go through the pain of the absence of a parent, just because I wanted to enjoy myself.

If you lived in the West, you would have free access to condoms which would make pregnancy highly unlikely unless used incorrectly.

Also, if the condom fails, there's the morning after pill.

[Mister Agenda]

Woody Allen once said something like 'Without love, sex is a shallow, meaningless act. But as shallow, meaningless acts go, it's one of the best.'

[WinterHold]

You seem to be able to think rationally and critically about everything besides islam. Brainwashed. But I know you'll be able to break free.

Anyway, more on topic, yes I think morality is subjective and I agree with the point you're trying to make. Please just don't go quoting the quran and claiming because morality is subjective there is a god and heaven and hell etc.

---

In fact, let's use your example about having sex without being married.

Do you not partake in this because of fear of hell or because of the actual reason you mentioned? Or maybe your fear of hell has tricked you into making up the reason and justification in the first place? What about atheists who don't have children before marriage? I think you have a long way before jumping into the "god did it" line. Maybe your point was just to say that morality is subjective and nothing related to religion (if so I apologise)

It's subjective in the most absolute way: it's subjective even to God himself. I think and believe that the will of God is the decider of what the morals should be; so by definition: it's subject to the will of God.

It's the trap many religious fall in: morals are not above God. God is above them since he created them; it's a subjective universe that was made and created by the will of God. It's his will after all.

Fear of hell -and God's punishment in general- helps me to keep on holding myself from doing "things that God subjectively say they are wrong-.  The subjective opinion of God is the absolute truth though according to my believe. He only wishes the truth, orders the truth.

I think logic is his gift to our minds to believe in him, and believe that his subjective will is the absolute truth. So it's not just fear of hell or punishment; it's fear of following illogical routes than end up in a blocked wall; being wrong.

---

I don't know anything about philosophy; and I'll be a liar if I said that I'm interested in it. To me; life is pretty much obvious; the shortest simple path is always the correct one; so no need for mazes and complications of what is simple.

I need money. You have money. I kill you and take your money. Short and simple. 
Moral? Correct?

Law of the jungle. It always comes down to this exact law no matter how complicated a human society and culture seemed.

[The Grand Nudger]

But how do I know that it's a misuse? misuse according to whom?

You can tell, because the point of philosophy is to provide clear answers to well formed questions.  When it provides no answer to confused questions...thats a misuse, just like trying to eat lentil soup with a hammer.

Morality changes with the people; morality in Rome was so different that morality in modern day France. Morality in modern Egypt is so different than ancient Zulu tribal societies.

Sure, our concepts of morality and even what fall under the moral purview have changed.  Were you going somewhere with this? Personally, I;d focus more on what has remained consistent over time, you might even say fundamental..between all disparate versions of morality.

That's also a very subjective matter. Give me a society; make me live in it for a while; and I'll give you what they think "the justification of any given mean" is.
In Japan, it's okay to be pedophile. It's not pedophilia there. The minor's "age" is 12 or younger. So lots of intercourse would be considered "pedophilia" in the West.

But once you set foot in Japan; you're a foreigner outsider that should keep their moral code to themselves; since the people of the island already have a moral code which is pretty different than yours. Making it a fact that morals are a subjective matter.

Referring to moral disagreement doesn't establish that morality is subjective.  There would be moral disagreement regardless of whether or not morality was objective or subjective.  It simply demonstrates that people have subjective opinions with regards to morality...which we already knew, yes?  

Contracts keep the kids known by name; keep the father (who should spend) attached to the responsibility; and keep the women with an evidence against the husband if he ran away. All are problems the west is so drenched in; and I keep Eminem to rap some facts about how sick he is, and how sick is his "faggot father" is:

You're not commenting on "contractless sex", above.  You're commenting on absentee fathers.  

I don't want to be "the faggot father"; I know I can't have kids when I'm broke; I know that I love bareback sex; And I know that I will resist doing it.
"Haram" for the sake of the unborn. I personally think that homosexuality might be lesser in sin than throwing a soul in the garbage.

Then wrap it up, dingus.  You don't need o marry a girl to wear a rubber.

How? I don't have a proper example; so I presented myself as one.
You can consider what you consider; it's a subjective opinion after all !

Th trouble is that it's not even a subjective opinion on the subject you proposed, which was contractless sex, not absentee fathers.  

Morals need people to adapt them. For a moral code to become religions or cultures we need more than two believers in the moral code. Each agreed to the moral code based on their subjective opinion.

Is the harm you feel done by absentee fathers just a matter of opinion?  Or do you feel that this harm is palpable, demonstrable, and beyond any one persons subjective appraisal?  In short, do you think that absentee fathers are objectively harmful?  

When the subjective opinion of so many change; a revolution on that culture-religion comes; change. To cause a revolution over the moral code of a culture; you change the subjective opinions of the people.

Sure, people are neccessarrily subjective creatures, but we already knew that.  I thought we were wondering whether or not morality was objective or subjective?  

The "need" is the cause of that requirement. We as humans need food, drink, air and even social interactions, and from these needs a portion of humans tend to think that an intelligent designer must be there to ensure the delivery of the answers to these needs.

When's the last time allah showed up with a cup of coffee and a donut, to ask you how your morning was?  This is a statement of the articles of your faith..not an explanation for a divine requirement to morality.

the "if" cannot be authentic without a designer. The constants and variables of the universe would differ drastically if things were random. We won't be according to most interpretations.

Another statement of the articles of your faith..and still not an explanation for any divine requirement to morality.  A simple answer to the simple question I asked would have shed more light on your status as a moral creature....see what I mean about misuse?  

Maybe a designer who is pushing humanity inside a filter called life? a design with ups and downs to write upon the person their deeds; either good or bad. Satan already rebelled against the standards of the designer; so humans were given the right to either rebel or submit; too.

What's the moral significance of submission or rebellion?  I worry, that this..and your response to Sa above...is indicative of an arbitrary morality, not so much a subjective one. If morality is as you seem to think it is, what's the significance of pursuing my own morality as opposed to some purportedly divine one? Is it all going to be reduced to a "Do what I say or burn" equation...because, if so, we're not discussing morality. We'd be discussing fealty to arbitrarity and punishment for non-conformity.

Capable; but always have a choice to either do or not do.
It's about choosing your moral code. Humans got split in choice; from the Adam-Eve sin and repent, to Judaism, Christianity,Islam, non belief...etc. The choices are so many; and the models are also so many.

I don't think that people choose their moral codes, at least not in any meaningful sense.  We're compelled by them, and compelled to them..for a variety of reasons/non-reasons.  I can't choose, for example..to regard rape as anything other than wrong.  How about you?  

We are created capable, so we can choose. Or in other words; so we will be filtered in this life; then go to either heaven or hell depending on our deeds.

You seem to want to talk djinn rather than morality. Would you expect to learn much about baseball from an hour long discussion of whitefly in tomato production?

[WinterHold]

Emotions and their production are written in out DNA, meaning that "feeling bad" or feeling "guilty" about something is pretty much a given ability since birth. To me; that's more of a pointing to an intelligent designer behind our existence.

I sometimes consider consciousness itself in that regard: why would a purely mechanical universe have consciousness at all?  However, I don't think the specific details of an organism's consciousness show intelligent design.  It seems to me an intelligent designer wouldn't need to leave a string of lesser-designed organisms before us.  Nor do humans seem to be anything like perfectly designed-- if the goal is perfection, an intelligent designer might have fast-forwarded to a model much superior to humanity.

Intelligent design shows itself in the meanings around everything: to exist the ratios need to be accurately "fine tuned"; the universe must have the proper building blocks to support life.

The void can't give birth to that; a "perfect plan" is my first guess when I see a video game. It is also the same guess when I see a universe. The mechanical aspect of it is working inside a context; life is flourished on earth because earth rotates and lives in a way that support our life, with it the whole solar system is doing a part to ensure that we keep on living. That is where I think the "intelligence of the design" shows itself. Add morality; and you'll just push more and more into the core of the idea.

[The Grand Nudger]

Intelligent design is uninformative with regards to morality.  Considering otherwise is to fall prey to the naturalistic fallacy.  What is intelligently designed to be so would be natural, but what is natural is not necessarily right.

Further, if this "plan" or "design" is as arbitrary and subjective as you've proposed, and that includes the divine morality.....what moral significance could it have? God thinks I should think/do x, I disagree, now what?

[WinterHold]

Our species behaviors are not handed down to us from above, nor are they in old mythology.

Unfortunately cruelty and force can and do work in evolution. But just as much so does compassion and cooperation.

I think the more humans that view our behaviors as in us, and not handed down to us, the more we can see ourselves as being the same species and not a separate species.

Every nation worldwide has both hospitals and prisons.

The "coming from above" idea, is a limitation to the abilities of God in my opinion. I know it's a metaphor; but our DNA does ensure what behaviors and abilities we will have; our future actions are written in every cell we have in our bodies.

[The Grand Nudger]

Genetic fatalism reduces all morality to insignificance. It also reduces your earlier comments about having "rights" to choose to follow god or what have you to meaningless. You have no such right, you have no such choice..if future action is written in.

[WinterHold]

Let's take sex without an official contract. That type of sex is enjoyable, allows for more freedom in picking up the partner, go easy on the person's wallet. Confronted with the cons of the possibility of producing a child, and the possibility of hurting a current spouse emotionally to great degrees.

Judging the act as "morally good" or "morally bad" is subjective. Take me: personally; I would never cause misery to a yet-to be born infant; and ruin his/her childhood through making them go through the pain of the absence of a parent, just because I wanted to enjoy myself.

If you lived in the West, you would have free access to condoms which would make pregnancy highly unlikely unless used incorrectly.

Also, if the condom fails, there's the morning after pill.

The revolution in manufacturing is pretty new; IL. It's only in the latest years that we began to see these methods.
Take it back 100 years ago; it wasn't that simple. Heck; even today, many go bareback -I think- and many don't take protection or whatsoever.

---

Woody Allen once said something like 'Without love, sex is a shallow, meaningless act. But as shallow, meaningless acts go, it's one of the best.'

Staying away from sex without contract is one of the hardest sentences in Islam. The act though is a beautiful way of transferring emotions between people, so beautiful it should not be abused though. Abusing it cause lots of disasters that weigh the good feeling

[The Grand Nudger]

Birth control is as old as the written word, at least...and probably a great deal older.  What point does this divergence serve, anyway?  You can have a kid with or without a marriage contract.  You can be an absentee father with or without a marriage contract. You can "transfer emotions" with or without a marriage contract..and fail to do the same with or without a marriage contract. Marriage contracts, and marriages themselves, are often abused.

Contracts are a moral non issue to any of the things you listed. For all the importance placed upon them..it's important to remember that marriage contracts are just property documents, lol. Legality, not morality.