Incest, homosexuality

[Justtristo]

Sigh.

You are dead wrong. I'm a woman and I'm polygamist, and I never get jealous. You are putting a stereotypical monogamous woman into a position of polygamy. What you said is simply not true. Polygamy rocks. Also, humans are biologically polygamous. The first humans had many "wives" and "husbands". Another thing is that other primate species are polygamous, and so are we, but religion had told us we are monogamous when we are not.

In the west it is true women who enter into polygamist relationships are like yourself. However in a lot of places where polygamy is practiced it is not that way, hence what I have said about it.

About humans versus other primate species, while we are primates (great apes to be exact) that does not mean we share their social organisational structures. Chimps for example don’t socialize in the ‘herds’ we humans do, their social group is based around extended families.

[ib.me.ub]

You saying I am not part of 'the rest of normal society'? Insinuating if my morality differs from yours that I am not "Normal"?

No, not at all. I am saying it is a social taboo, thus insinuating the majority of society deems this practice unacceptable or improper.

You are dead wrong. I'm a woman and I'm polygamist, and I never get jealous. You are putting a stereotypical monogamous woman into a position of polygamy. What you said is simply not true. Polygamy rocks. Also, humans are biologically polygamous. The first humans had many "wives" and "husbands". Another thing is that other primate species are polygamous, and so are we, but religion had told us we are monogamous when we are not.

I like this.....against the law in Australia if you are married though.

Your language was confused, Individuals find something morally repulsive the same way a detective finds someone guilty, it's based on an evaluation of some moral standard, so it makes no sense to say "I find this morally repulsive" or "I think this is morally wrong" or anything to that effect. We can remove "morally" from any one of these sentences and get the same exact meaning, demonstrating that the use of the word was meaningless within that sentence.

I'm not going to even argue with you here. Another great example. I'll put it this way just for you; If I find something repulsive, I think that it is wrong in relation to my own moral standards.

Again this makes me want to point out that using "morally" just adds meaningless baggage to your claim as morally wrong is wrong and should be prevented, to say something is morally wrong and to not want to stop it makes no sense.

*cough* Whys that. I just don't do it myself. Because I dislike something, dosen't mean I must change it, or I have the right to change it. Once again you are making assumptions based on your own understanding, who made you the arbiter of all knowledge.

The only real definition of morality is "a standard by which we judge action", how we determine what the standard is is where the moral theories like subjectivism come in, though I'm fairly confident that subjectivism is false, because it neglects to take into account relational values which do exist and are not subjective.

We each determine what that moral standard is for the individual. Once again, there is no universal moral code, and the more you try and apply it to converstations the more futile it will become. This has been discussed many times in other posts.

Individual subjectivism (I like) is what you seem to be using......

Well, yes, in regards to morals, can their be any other method.

Something being taboo does not make it morally wrong, all it means is that the society in question does not like it....

1. proscribed by society as improper or unacceptable: taboo words.

As defined.

Please note that wrong is a synonym of unacceptable.

1. not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed.

Wrong as pertaining to morals.

Therefore, you can state that a taboo is an act considered morally wrong by society, by definition.

Aww, your playing victim because I pointed out a confusion in the way you're using terms? Come on, that's over the top

Here's a hypothetical: Incest is legal, you alone have the ability to criminalise it, would you do it and why?

I will get back to you on this one considering it is a though experiment, I will have a think about it.

[theVOID]

Your language was confused, Individuals find something morally repulsive the same way a detective finds someone guilty, it's based on an evaluation of some moral standard, so it makes no sense to say "I find this morally repulsive" or "I think this is morally wrong" or anything to that effect. We can remove "morally" from any one of these sentences and get the same exact meaning, demonstrating that the use of the word was meaningless within that sentence.

I'm not going to even argue with you here. Another great example. I'll put it this way just for you; If I find something repulsive, I think that it is wrong in relation to my own moral standards.

I would argue that "my morality" and "your morality" don't exist, or rather it makes no sense to use the word morality with subjective value statements because morality is concerned with "us" value, and not an individuals opinion on what actions are morally good or bad.

what is the difference between your moral standards and your other standards? In other words, how do you decide which standards are moral standards and which aren't?

Again this makes me want to point out that using "morally" just adds meaningless baggage to your claim as morally wrong is wrong and should be prevented, to say something is morally wrong and to not want to stop it makes no sense.

*cough* Whys that. I just don't do it myself. Because I dislike something, dosen't mean I must change it, or I have the right to change it. Once again you are making assumptions based on your own understanding, who made you the arbiter of all knowledge.

You have the right to condemn people who do the things you find repulsive, but if it's simply "I find x repulsive" then you have no obligation to condemn or prevent it, but if something is morally bad, then it is something we have reason to prevent or condemn. So, like I said, saying something is morally wrong but we shouldn't do anything about it makes no sense.

And i'm not being the arbiter of anything, i'm giving reasons for my conclusions that are up for criticism, that's totally different from dictating terminology.

The only real definition of morality is "a standard by which we judge action", how we determine what the standard is is where the moral theories like subjectivism come in, though I'm fairly confident that subjectivism is false, because it neglects to take into account relational values which do exist and are not subjective.

We each determine what that moral standard is for the individual. Once again, there is no universal moral code, and the more you try and apply it to converstations the more futile it will become. This has been discussed many times in other posts.

No, we only determine our values, whether or not our values are morally good or bad is something else. Opinion and morality aren't interchangeable. There aren't just two options, "universal code" and "i like", we also have relationships to consider, how my actions and intentions affect other people, that is the "us" part of morality and talking about values in terms of "us" what morality is about.

Individual subjectivism (I like) is what you seem to be using......

Well, yes, in regards to morals, can their be any other method.

Yes, there are relational values, how my actions affect your ability to fulfill your desires and vice verse. This is the only real net negative or positive that can exist in terms of the population, so it's the only way to talk about values and "us" and thus is the only way it makes sense to talk about morality.

"Moral for me" and "Moral for you" make about as much sense as "my logic" and "your logic"

Something being taboo does not make it morally wrong, all it means is that the society in question does not like it. Sex before marriage was (and in some places still is) taboo, but I suspect neither of us would conclude that it's morally wrong because of the opinion of a particular society.

proscribed by society as improper or unacceptable: taboo words.

As defined.

Please note that wrong is a synonym of unacceptable.

not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed.

Wrong as pertaining to morals.

Do you not see where you went wrong there? You've taken the definition for "morally wrong", equated it with "wrong" (in the common sense), and then used that to say unacceptable == morally wrong.

Something that is unacceptable is not necessarily immoral, I might do an unacceptable job of doing the dishes, for example, and piss off my flat mates. Was doing a bad job of the dishes "morally wrong"?

All morally wrong things are necessarily unacceptable, but all unacceptable things are not necessarily morally wrong.

Therefore, you can state that a taboo is an act considered morally wrong by society, by definition.

Only with your false equivocation.

If something is taboo it only means that a particular society deems it to be unacceptable to them. Again, premarital sex is taboo in some cultures, does that make it morally wrong?

Aww, your playing victim because I pointed out a confusion in the way you're using terms? Come on, that's over the top

Here's a hypothetical: Incest is legal, you alone have the ability to criminalise it, would you do it and why?

I will get back to you on this one considering it is a though experiment, I will have a think about it.

I look forward to your response.

[ib.me.ub]

I would argue that "my morality" and "your morality" don't exist, or rather it makes no sense to use the word morality with subjective value statements because morality is concerned with "us" value, and not an individuals opinion on what actions are morally good or bad.

Off you go then ;-). It makes no difference.

You have the right to condemn people who do the things you find repulsive, but if it's simply "I find x repulsive" then you have no obligation to condemn or prevent it, but if something is morally bad, then it is something we have reason to prevent or condemn. So, like I said, saying something is morally wrong but we shouldn't do anything about it makes no sense.

See this is what you beleive. It is not what I said.

No, we only determine our values, whether or not our values are morally good or bad is something else. Opinion and morality aren't interchangeable. There aren't just two options, "universal code" and "i like", we also have relationships to consider, how my actions and intentions affect other people, that is the "us" part of morality and talking about values in terms of "us" what morality is about.

Ummm, no. Once again it is but your opinion.

"Moral for me" and "Moral for you" make about as much sense as "my logic" and "your logic"

You certainly have a very strange way to look at the World.

Do you not see where you went wrong there? You've taken the definition for "morally wrong", equated it with "wrong" (in the common sense), and then used that to say unacceptable == morally wrong.

The definition or wrong was taken from a dictionary. One which 'most' people see as being correct.

If something is taboo it only means that a particular society deems it to be unacceptable to them. Again, premarital sex is taboo in some cultures, does that make it morally wrong?

In that culture, for the majority, yes. Generally people who are on the fringes don't have a say and are rarely able to make a difference.

[thesummerqueen]

Carina, may I ask why you're okay with incest, but not with homosexuality?

[CarinaS]

Carina, may I ask why you're okay with incest, but not with homosexuality?

I think both should be "allowed" - homosexuals should be allowed to marry, etc, and adult incestuous couples should also have that privilege. I have no reason to deny them any right. it just gives Me a "yuck" reaction, and it bothers Me on a personal level. I would never attack or hate anyone for that.

[thesummerqueen]

I have no reason to deny them any right. it just gives Me a "yuck" reaction, and it bothers Me on a personal level. I would never attack or hate anyone for that.

I was merely wondering, not saying you would attack anyone.

I think (and this is just my personal belief based on observation) you'll find that just as woman's lib gained momentum after the introduction of an effective birth control pill, acceptance of any sexual life style considered "alternative" will probably have to rely on some major scientific breakthrough that can be waved in the face of religion/convention/tradition. For instance, while gay men are becoming more and more accepted, I think it would take a very effective treatment for AIDS or a cure to really cut the legs out from under the fucktards I hear down here still referring to it as "the gay disease".

Or maybe I'm talking out of my ass - one would think the plethora of protection options in the form of all the various condoms this world has to offer would be reason enough to begin allowing things that normally would not have been accepted. Except if certain major religious institutions actually condoned condom use/other protection methods, they would lose their ability to also say no to the things they consider yucky. Funny that.

I think you'll find here that most people don't give a good goddamn what you do in your bedroom...unless you're willing to bring it to light to satisfy the lurking voyeurs.

[theVOID]

I would argue that "my morality" and "your morality" don't exist, or rather it makes no sense to use the word morality with subjective value statements because morality is concerned with "us" value, and not an individuals opinion on what actions are morally good or bad.

Off you go then ;-). It makes no difference.

Not really, but it does help to have our language as coherent and sensible as possible. Having "subjective morality" is 1) The same thing as opinion and 2) Doesn't make sense of moral language.

You have the right to condemn people who do the things you find repulsive, but if it's simply "I find x repulsive" then you have no obligation to condemn or prevent it, but if something is morally bad, then it is something we have reason to prevent or condemn. So, like I said, saying something is morally wrong but we shouldn't do anything about it makes no sense.

See this is what you beleive. It is not what I said.

Yes you did, you said that you find incest "morally repulsive" but you aren't going to do anything about it (which is actually false as condemning it is doing something about it). To say x is morally wrong is the same as saying "we have reasons for action to prevent x". If there was no reason for "us" to prevent it then there is no reason to associate it with morality.

No, we only determine our values, whether or not our values are morally good or bad is something else. Opinion and morality aren't interchangeable. There aren't just two options, "universal code" and "i like", we also have relationships to consider, how my actions and intentions affect other people, that is the "us" part of morality and talking about values in terms of "us" what morality is about.

Ummm, no. Once again it is but your opinion.

No it's not, it's a fairly obvious conclusion from the premises:

1. Do you determine any values but your own? No
2. Is morality concerned with individuals or societies? Societies
3. Are claims about social values "opinions"? No

Therefore:
3.Does it make sense to talk about individual morality? No.

It's rather straight forward.

"Moral for me" and "Moral for you" make about as much sense as "my logic" and "your logic"

You certainly have a very strange way to look at the World.

Is there a "my logic" and "your logic"? No, there is logic and whether or not we are correct in using it is the only time "me" and "you" are concerned.

Morality is the same. It is a standard by which action is judged and It's necessarily concerned with values relating to "us". What actions bring about good and bad values for (most of) "us" is not an opinion, it's an objective fact. "me" or "you" have our own values, and our values include our own standard of evaluation similar to morality, but opinions of that type are not concerned with "us" so they can't be called morality.

That's all sound and valid, so your objection is rather weak.

Do you not see where you went wrong there? You've taken the definition for "morally wrong", equated it with "wrong" (in the common sense), and then used that to say unacceptable == morally wrong.

The definition or wrong was taken from a dictionary. One which 'most' people see as being correct.

You took a subset of the definition specifically related to morality, that's immediately obvious when you look at examples like "your test answer was wrong" - That has absofuckinlutely nothing to do with morality.

"Wrong" means "false" or "not good" depending on the context "morally wrong" is a subset of wrong related to social value.

It's still a false equivocation.

If something is taboo it only means that a particular society deems it to be unacceptable to them. Again, premarital sex is taboo in some cultures, does that make it morally wrong?

In that culture, for the majority, yes. Generally people who are on the fringes don't have a say and are rarely able to make a difference.

So your're moral relativist? As long as the group in which x happens likes x then x is good. If the group hate x then x is bad?

That makes Killing Jews morally good for the Nazis I hope you realise. And it's inconsistent with moral language, someone who says "x is morally wrong" does not mean "x is morally wrong when we hate x", they mean "x is wrong independent of culture"

Moral relativism is Majority Opinion == Truth, so it's also an argument from popularity.

[ib.me.ub]

Ok, whatever you say.

[lrh9]

theVOID believes in objective morality?