| Subject: Splitting hairs... |
Author:
Duane
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 02/15/04 9:17am
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Disputable morality" on 02/12/04 10:42am
>
>>Wade:
>>>For instance, why is
>>>stealing a candy bar from a store wrong? Because it
>>>unfairly hurts their business. Why is that wrong?
>>>Well...it just is.
>>
>>No, it's wrong because we, as a (large) group of
>>humans, have decided it's wrong.
>
>What is ethics than? Does merely believing an
>ethical statement to be true make it true? In
>that case, was it right for Hitler and the Nazis to
>slaughter millions of Jews (as they believed it was)?
No, consensus by large group of humans does. The decision-making Nazis were not a large group of humans, as far as human societies go. And I believe you'd have a hard time providing sufficient evidence that a world-population-type large number of people in Germany truly believed in the rightness of the slaughter of Jews.
We know that one bad person in a position of nearly-absolute power can do terribly evil things. We see it time and time again. Your example hardly demonstrates a flaw in my definition of "rightness."
Also, murder is one of those "things" we, as large groups of reasonable humans, have agreed isn't O.K.
Also, the Holocaust, and other occurrences of mass murder and genocide have always been, and will always be, abhorred by all reasonable people.
The above does not seem to fit into my definition, and so is not an effective counter-example.
>
>>>Making nuclear missiles seems stretching it, but
>>>nonetheless I think the question, “Where do we draw
>>>the line?” is a valid one. Should we legalize gay
>sex
>>>but still outlaw gay sex between a father and his
>son?
>>> Why or why not? Just where do we draw the
>>>line?
>>
>>There is already a clear line. Volition.
>
>Not that clear. A lot of people would agree on the
>belief that gay sex between a father and his son is
>not right even when it is consensual.
Of course. And I never said it was. In fact, I made the point that it was NOT ok. Again, the reason being volition.
We, as a large group of people, have arbitrarily selected the age of, oh, say about 18? to be the age of majority. Why that age? Maybe because most people at that age seem to have enough mental presence to make up their own minds with regards to sex, smoking, voting, etc.
It is perfect? no. Is it arbitrary? yes. But is there a better way to determine volition when it comes to sex? Don't know. But we've decided that if I have sex with my 16 year old neighbor, it's rape, not consensual sex, no matter what.
>>If you are opposed to homosexual sexual relations,
>>then you must be opposed to oral and anal sex between
>>members of the opposite sex, in order to be
>>biblically and legislatively consistent.
>
>Really? On what grounds? I never claimed that I
>believe gay sex to be wrong merely because the
>legislature says so. And where in the Bible does it
>say that oral and anal sex are immoral?
O.K., so why do you think gay sex is wrong? And why do you think anal and oral is ok? Or do you? Please clarify your position on the following sex acts:
M+F vaginal
M+F vaginal + contraception
M+F/F+M oral
M+F anal
F+M anal (strap-on?)
I'm really, truly not trying to be offensive, but I'm curious as to your justification of some and not others.
Duane
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 