Adultery is OUT

quatona said:

I am afraid this will always happen (no matter what you say upfront) and prevent productive discussions.

Click to expand...

But if we agree to it in advance, which was my original point, I can point out the inconsistency.

grasping the after wind said:

But if we agree to it in advance, which was my original point, I can point out the inconsistency.

Click to expand...

Yes, sure. The problem (that people won´t agree to it), though, remains.
My point being: We have to deal with those people declaring their moral ideas objective. And with those who don´t do it, we didn´t have this problem anyway.

That said, what do you think of this suggestion:
"Let´s all work from the assumption that moral ideas are subjective, because else all we are left with are Holy Wars." ?

Open Heart said:

I can see where you might think I was decrying hypocrisy, but really it was only the relativism.

Click to expand...

I don't see any relativism in your example. You described an instance of hypocrisy, which has nothing to do with moral relativism...

A moral relativist would not say something like "I can live with my boyfriend while for you fornication is wrong." That's a definitive and illogical statement.

grasping the after wind said:

I think the minute we agree that morality is in no way objective we can begin to discuss what subjective morality is more reasonable. We certainly will disagree on that but at least we can dispense with the arrogance of contending that our idea of morality is somehow objectively correct and above reproach.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Claiming that there's no discussion to be had is just a waste of time, because saying "I'm right because I am" doesn't change anyone's mind.

I just figure marriage is a huge commitment, so if I'm going to take that step, I want to be sure I can envision myself actually living with the other person for my whole life. I'm more of a monogamous guy when it comes to my relationships, especially with romance.

Open Heart said:

It has been suggested that I am confusing moral subjectivism with moral relativism. However, I think I'm getting my morals based on objectivism due to biblical morality, compared to the relativism based on post modernism. See definition of Moral Relativism Internet Enclyclopedia:

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.​

Click to expand...

...and that´s still not the opposite of moral objectivism. Objective and relative morality aren´t mutually exclusive. (Hint: absolute and relative morality are).

Open Heart said:

See definition of Moral Relativism Internet Enclyclopedia:

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.​

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm aware. That doesn't mean a moral relativist is going to say that they can have premarital sex while it's magically immoral for the person next door to do the same (a member of the same society, jurisdiction, etc.). These "particular standpoints" are on a large scale, not the garden fence.

For example, today we might say that you'd have to be evil to approve of slavery, but I doubt many people would say that the vast majority of white people who were born in the South were pure evil while the white Northerners somehow weren't. I wouldn't want a modern slaveowner to be on my money, but I don't complain about George Washington being on there because I judge him according to his culture.

Well that's kind of a poor example. Not only are the subjects of Good and Evil open to interpretation for some, but I personally believe that all human beings, no matter their actions or intentions, are incapable of pure Good and are born Evil.

Though it would take me forever to really define what I mean by those.

Well I'm something of a misanthrope, and despite the christian upbringing, I came to the conclusion on my own.

Again though, depends on your definitions of Good or Evil, now doesn't it?

Open Heart said:

I find that most human beings are not exceptionally good nor evil, but are morally mediocre. I know I am.

Click to expand...

I don't think humans are capable of true good. We have our own definition of it, sure, but I don't think it's a pure definition. I think humanity is a bit too corrupt for that, as even things we label good tend to hurt other beings.

I just think the planet would be better off without us entirely. Though it doesn't really need us, I suppose.

Open Heart said:

We're the pinnacle of evolution, even morally sentient.

Click to expand...

I don't really view us as evolved in a good sense. We're the world's worst parasite, if anything.

What other creature can make a rocket and go walk on the moon? Or write a sonnet or an overture?

Click to expand...

I don't care about rockets or walking on the moon. I like poetry but words can only express so much. I still don't view these things as 'good' though. More like... neutral for the poetry, bad for the rocket.

Even doing the bunny hop is culturally more than any other species, and fun fun fun. But what's more, you find human beings doing enormous acts of self sacrifice for others... especially during times of chaos and crisis. What chimpanzee Schindlers can you think of?

Click to expand...

Perhaps if most of humanity were selfless, I would not think we are inherently evil. But most of humanity would rather save themselves than another person, much less an animal or the environment.

I don't view humanity as worthwhile. Perhaps I think they have potential, but I am almost certain they'll never live up to what they could become.

If evolution really is a thing, we're a dead end.

Open Heart said:

Adultery is OUT

Click to expand...

Talking about fashion items - are hipster beards still IN?

Pfft what is Hipster I don't even.
*shrugs*