Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[Fake Messiah]

That is exactly what Bible demands of its followers: to kill hemophilic infants by circumcising them.

How many millions of babies do you think have died because they were hemophilic and their parents circumcised them because it was a "moral" thing to do according to Bible?

That would be closer to a mistake than to rationalization, which is what our moral systems tend to do.

It was a mistake to listen to the Bible for morality. Indeed, morality is something that develops and fine tunes by society over time and it would certainly be a failure to listen what some ancient goat herders thought what would be moral for us in Bible, thousands of years ago.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's the exact opposite, actually. If moral systems - the products of **reason **- struggle hard to rule out rape, infidelity, utilitarianism, etc. then they are a miserable failure. 

Well then, if they don't...they aren't. 

I'm guessing that you believe that islamic morality is rational, right?  It's important to acknowledge any points of agreement between us.  We both put a high premium on any moral system being rational.  We even put a high premium on deciding these matters conversationally when we predicate our statements with a conditional like if.  

Seeing as how this is the case, objections as to the applicability and efficacy of reason..between us...simply aren't genuine.

Again, once you tell me infidelity might not be wrong in some obscure corner of your moral system, we're done. You're advocating for the exact sexual depravity my religion - all religions, actually, came to stand up against. 

Correct, I'm telling you that in a harm based moral system - if an open marriage is not harmful - then it's not wrong.

There may be other morally relevant facts.  Maybe we can take harm away and an open marriage would still be wrong.  It's up to you to suggest what those other relevant facts might be, if you wish to contend....as you do...that infidelity is wrong as a matter of fact.

I think I already explained how these examples are not relationships. Call them open prostitution, orgies, whatever. Leave the word relationships out of this swamp.

Why would I?  On account of the simple fact that those peoples very existence is deleterious to your objections?   Tough luck.  They exist.  See above.

Do you see the irony in your complaining about other peoples moral systems struggling, yet?

Allowing open "relationships" obviously undermines the value of marriage in its traditional sense.  It's basically an incentive to be less committed to one's spouse. Again, if you moral system struggles with that, it's a miserable failure.

-and yet people in open relationships can be as and even more committed to their spouses than people in a "traditional marriage".  

As I keep explaining to you, my moral system doesn't struggle with any of this - you struggle with it.  We both already agree that a harmful relationship is bad.  I'm asking you to consider an open relationship that is not causing harm.   

What would be bad about that relationship?

[LadyForCamus]

Well...book says...der di derrrr.

[The Grand Nudger]

Exactly.

Thing is, that's fine! As a moral realist, and as a value pluralist - and without any preference whatsoever for natural or non natural realism - I can honestly say that the value people place on the things that their magic book says is just fine by me.

I just want there to be some explanation of why that value should be a moral value. Our boy here keeps talking about failure.....but failure is a utilitarian value, not necessarily a moral -or- religious value. Let's imagine that some moral system is a failure on utilitarian grounds. So what? That wouldn't make it morally wrong.

The way I see it, we can fail six ways to sunday - and that failure can't demonstrate moral failure, only utilitarian failure. Fine, non-god systems™ don't work....but are they wrong......?

[R00tKiT]

Correct, I'm telling you that in a harm based moral system - if an open marriage is not harmful - then it's not wrong.

Okay. And that's a good indication that harm based moral systems don't work.

There may be other morally relevant facts.  Maybe we can take harm away and an open marriage would still be wrong.  It's up to you to suggest what those other relevant facts might be, if you wish to contend....as you do...that infidelity is wrong as a matter of fact.

I already explained why open marriage cannot be right, it betrays commitment. Commitment is by definition not admitting any third party at any stage.

-and yet people in open relationships can be as and even more committed to their spouses than people in a "traditional marriage". 

Aw, that's touching. I don't know if you really think this stuff through. The thing is, a caring husband would prefer commiting to his one and only spouse, rather than pick up these values from a (bitch) third party being around.

Why would I?  On account of the simple fact that those peoples very existence is deleterious to your objections?   Tough luck.  They exist.  See above.

I am aware they exist, pal. The thing is, these people are engaged in an immoral, invalid engagement, no matter how sweet and fantastic their *relationship* is. If you feel like you need to take into account every existing relationship out there you think is too cute to rule out, you might want to consider purchasing a new, more efficient moral system.

Maybe you need to hear the gentle sex's opinion about bringing in third parties to learn commitment. 

[The Grand Nudger]

Correct, I'm telling you that in a harm based moral system - if an open marriage is not harmful - then it's not wrong.

Okay. And that's a good indication that harm based moral systems don't work.

Why?  Why would it indicate a problem in a harm based system..if, when harm is not present, a thing is not contended to be wrong?  

There may be other morally relevant facts.  Maybe we can take harm away and an open marriage would still be wrong.  It's up to you to suggest what those other relevant facts might be, if you wish to contend....as you do...that infidelity is wrong as a matter of fact.

I already explained why open marriage cannot be right, it betrays commitment. 

Except when it doesn't.  When an open relationship is more committed than it's contemporary "traditional relationships" - then why would it be wrong?

-and yet people in open relationships can be as and even more committed to their spouses than people in a "traditional marriage". 

Aw, that's touching. I don't know if you really think this stuff through. The thing is, a caring husband would prefer commiting to his one and only spouse, rather than pick up these values from a (bitch) third party being around.

Yes, think this stuff through.  If and when a caring husband does prefer more than one partner...-and- that partner is okay with that - then what would be wrong™ about their relationship?

Why would I?  On account of the simple fact that those peoples very existence is deleterious to your objections?   Tough luck.  They exist.  See above.

I am aware they exist, pal. The thing is, these people are engaged in an immoral, invalid engagement, no matter how sweet and fantastic their *relationship* is. If you feel like you need to take into account every existing relationship out there you think is too cute to rule out, you might want to consider purchasing a new, more efficient moral system.

Maybe you need to hear the gentle sex's opinion about bringing in third parties to learn commitment. 

Good, I'm glad that you're aware that they exist.  Now that we've dispensed with that, and you acknowledge their sheer existence...kindly explain to me what...exactly...is wrong™ about their relationships?

You're struggling. I'm not. In that event, there is nothing objectively..which is to say factually...wrong™ with their relationships. Do you disagree?

[Abaddon_ire]

Correct, I'm telling you that in a harm based moral system - if an open marriage is not harmful - then it's not wrong.

Okay. And that's a good indication that harm based moral systems don't work.

No. It isn't. What any two or three or ten individuals get up to in the bedroom is no business of yours, mine or religions. If there is no harm, then it is not immoral.

There may be other morally relevant facts.  Maybe we can take harm away and an open marriage would still be wrong.  It's up to you to suggest what those other relevant facts might be, if you wish to contend....as you do...that infidelity is wrong as a matter of fact.

I already explained why open marriage cannot be right, it betrays commitment. Commitment is by definition not admitting any third party at any stage.

There is no reason why a multi-partner relationship cannot be committed.

-and yet people in open relationships can be as and even more committed to their spouses than people in a "traditional marriage". 

Aw, that's touching. I don't know if you really think this stuff through. The thing is, a caring husband would prefer commiting to his one and only spouse, rather than pick up these values from a (bitch) third party being around.

Oooo. Spot the misogyny. It is always some bitch, isn't it.

Why would I?  On account of the simple fact that those peoples very existence is deleterious to your objections?   Tough luck.  They exist.  See above.

I am aware they exist, pal. The thing is, these people are engaged in an immoral, invalid engagement, no matter how sweet and fantastic their *relationship* is. If you feel like you need to take into account every existing relationship out there you think is too cute to rule out, you might want to consider purchasing a new, more efficient moral system.

Secular morality seems to fit the bill. It is far more real.

Maybe you need to hear the gentle sex's opinion about bringing in third parties to learn commitment. 

That makes you sound like an inexperienced virgin child. "The gentle sex"? Fucking really? I have had partners who wanted to do things I refused to engage in. Women.

The "gentle sex"? Like hell they are.

You are a virgin.

[arewethereyet]

@Klorophyll
Haven't met many of us in real life, have you?

'The gentle sex'...thanks for the laugh.

[The Grand Nudger]

He may be unfamiliar with pussy - but he's not unfamiliar with morality. He does it all the time, using the same equipment that everyone else does.

His notions of a fairer sex are explicable. His beliefs about secular morality are not.

[Abaddon_ire]

@Klorophyll
Haven't met many of us in real life, have you?

'The gentle sex'...thanks for the laugh.

Oh in my experience there is nothing worse that what I refer to as a "corpse bonk". I don't want a recipient, I want a participant. An enthusiastic participant.