New religion

[Carnavon]

I've had a similar exchange with Statler on the subject of morality where he also got the impression that my ideas of morality let people off the hook if they don't get caught. I'm not sure how that follows. Attempting to harm or recklessly running the risk of causing harm is also wrongdoing, even if by good fortune harm is not done.

If I were to attempt to shoot someone with a gun and I miss, the courts would NOT let me walk simply because I failed to do any harm. I'd still be rightly prosecuted for the attempted crime. While morality and legality don't always agree, we still should be able to understand that attempted wrongdoing is still wrongdoing.

In the case you mention of a hypothetical affair that isn't caught, I'd still be violating my wife's trust and our agreement when we were married. I did mention "integrity" as one of the criteria of moral behavior. Wronging someone is still wronging them even if you're not caught.

I live by three commandments that apply in the bedroom as well as outside of it:

1. Act with integrity
2. Respect the rights of others
3. Take responsibility for your actions

Now, let's suppose the existence of a married couple that had an "open" marriage. This is not my cup of tea, since I'm very monogamous and haven't ever felt the need for more than one relationship at a time, but for someone else, if that's what they both agree to, it would not be immoral.

Another example of what you may as a Christian regard as "immoral" that I don't is love when the body parts are similar. Let's suppose for the sake of argument, that the power of God were to one day transform my wife into a man. My feelings for her (him) would be no different and we'd stay married. As one who's bisexual, I don't think body parts are a serious concern and love feels the same regardless.

Now on to the topic of whether we're becoming more moral or less...
As a business owner and one educated in business school, I can tell you that the culture has indeed changed. Having a relationship with someone who works for you is now seen as unethical where it wasn't before. There is more awareness now of sexually predatory behavior where there wasn't before. What society once tolerated is now viewed with disgust.

This is also true in other areas. Yes, slavery still exists in the world but not openly. Just a few hundred years ago, it was openly defended as if it were a proper institution. Abolition was a political controversy. Now we know better.

During that same time period, wars of aggression were part of political life. Britain, France, Germany and other powers of Europe colonized parts of the world. America also indulged in empire building. War was a political tool to take territory and resources. Today, wars of aggression are seen rightly as a crime. The kind of empire building of times even as recent as the 19th century would be unacceptable today. Now, wars of aggression still happen (see our recent invasion of Iraq) but they're prosecuted as crimes against the world when we are able to.

Studying ancient history reveals the kinds of crimes against humanity that would horrify us today were common practice. It wasn't just barbarian hoards let by such infamous characters like Attila that massacred and enslaved conquered towns. Even lauded conquerors of so-called "civilization", like "Alexander the Great", massacred entire towns for daring to resist his invasion. The Iliad alleges the Greeks leveled Troy, put all the men to the sword, took women as sex slaves and children as slaves. When Carthage fell to Rome, a similar fate awaited her citizens. Rome did the same to Jerusalem as a grim "lesson" for the Jews in an attempt to break their spirit. Such tactics now horrify us today and would be prosecuted in a world court.

So yes, I think the world is getting more moral, not less.

Thanks for the response.
As I see your arguments then (please correct me if I am wrong)
(1) There is no objective measure of morality, as this depends on individual choice and convictions. (If you do set a standard -as per your definition- why is that true?)
(2) We are becoming more “moral”.
It would seem to me that the first two arguments cannot both be true for to make a judgement you need a standard.

Yet you judge previous moral standards although they were the ones that were considered appropriate at the time (their preferences) and thus we cannot judge them as it was “agreed” that they were right. How can you now judge them. If you do, you assume that there is an ultimate right and wrong that is slowly being “revealed”. Where does this standard originate?

[Epimethean]

Nice trick. Bring out the deconstructionism! Now we should be able to discuss how evolution cannot work, because it would be unfair to judge primitive bacteria by our standards. This should move expeditiously to a seven day creation schedule and a 7,000 year-old earth.

Fuck ...

[Carnavon]

Nice trick. Bring out the deconstructionism! Now we should be able to discuss how evolution cannot work, because it would be unfair to judge primitive bacteria by our standards. This should move expeditiously to a seven day creation schedule and a 7,000 year-old earth.

No trick at all. I don't work like that. I try and be honest in interactions. If it sometimes borders on stupidity, I ask that you will be kind.
It only seems logical to me that if you claim something to be better or worse, there must be a standard against which you judge. If everyone has their own standard, then one can only basically say that in terms of my standard, this is better or worse but cannot make a general statement to that effect. Do you disagree?
But even so, do you agree that even at your own standard at present, you do not live up to it? And I am not playing a guilt trip on you, I am stating a fact that all honest people will agree to (unless you agree to the principle "If at first you do not succeed, lower your standard!" . )
From a Christian perspective, I realise that I sin as I do not meet the standard set by God, as reflected in the Bible. As there is sufficient evidence for me to accept that the Bible is true, I have to accept that there will be a day of reckoning. But also knowing from the same source that I do not have to be perfect to inherit eternal life, I gratefully accept the free gift that God has provided through Jesus Christ but still act responsible, having received a new "heart".

[Epimethean]

No. I live up to my standard. I have not lowered it by addressing you as the deluded charlatan you are. Science has a metric for its standards. Religion has a slippery sliding scale. The fact that you even suggest a "guilt" trip shows that you have no conception of an atheist view of things, nor would I suggest you could; but stop with the ridiculous palaver.

[Carnavon]

No. I live up to my standard. I have not lowered it by addressing you as the deluded charlatan you are. Science has a metric for its standards. Religion has a slippery sliding scale. The fact that you even suggest a "guilt" trip shows that you have no conception of an atheist view of things, nor would I suggest you could; but stop with the ridiculous palaver.

Just testing your standards: Have you ever lied? Have you ever taken something (no matter how small) from somebody without their permission? So if your answer is positive, you have confessed that you are a liar and a thief. You OK with that as a standard?

[Epimethean]

You see with one eye closed and the other rolling back in your head. Nice edit above, and a false premise to boot! You're a treat.

[Carnavon]

You see with one eye closed and the other rolling back in your head.

Looking forward to your response on the previous post, as I have updated the response as it was harsh, for which I apologize.

[Epimethean]

If you want to debate the immortality of anything-even a lie, you're going to have one hell of an uphill battle with any but your own sheep.

[Carnavon]

If you want to debate the immortality of anything-even a lie, you're going to have one hell of an uphill battle with any but your own sheep.

Maybe just answer the question?

[Epimethean]

Maybe just ask a question that has import for the matter at hand, or make your question less generic?