ASIDE from apparent Biblical injunctions...

[EnemyPartyII]

What is the benefit of changing right and wrong to be relatively defined by a standard of whatever makes you happy? To make such a radical, Objectivist type move, one must ask themselves why such Randian moves are taken?

I think you are avoding the question, or at least misreading what I say...

In what possible way can "do what you like, provided you have the mutual informed consent of all other relevant parties" result in anything but "right" acts?

 

[Gusoceros]

I think you are avoding the question, or at least misreading what I say...

In what possible way can "do what you like, provided you have the mutual informed consent of all other relevant parties" result in anything but "right" acts?

Well- first of all, what is right, and what we want are not the same thing. Right is not defined by desire. Consent is assumed- Im not arguing that.

So- why is it important to redefine what is right with what I desire?

G

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Well- first of all, what is right, and what we want are not the same thing. Right is not defined by desire. Consent is assumed- Im not arguing that.

So- why is it important to redefine what is right with what I desire?

OK, so... assuming consent... why is ANY desire wrong?

 

[Gusoceros]

OK, so... assuming consent... why is ANY desire wrong?

Because right and wrong are not based on desire- in fact we are warned that we will be TEMPTED to do wrong. We have a SIN nature- our bodies will CONSTANTLY drive us to sin.

Fornication is a sin- note these are usually desirable at the moment.

Gluttony

Drunkeness

etc.

Im sure there are other examples, but thought I would toss out a few.

So- why is it important to redefine what is right to be based on what we desire?

G

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Because right and wrong are not based on desire- in fact we are warned that we will be TEMPTED to do wrong. We have a SIN nature- our bodies will CONSTANTLY drive us to sin.

Fornication is a sin- note these are usually desirable at the moment.

Gluttony

Drunkeness

etc.

Im sure there are other examples, but thought I would toss out a few.

So- why is it important to redefine what is right to be based on what we desire?

But whats wrong with them? Other than what the Bible says? You seem to be of the opinion that there is an INHERRENT wrongness to them... and if so, I'm interested how you arrive at this point? If there is, infact, an inherrent wrongness to these things, it should be discernable without the Bible

 

[PinkTulip]

But whats wrong with them? Other than what the Bible says? You seem to be of the opinion that there is an INHERRENT wrongness to them... and if so, I'm interested how you arrive at this point? If there is, infact, an inherrent wrongness to these things, it should be discernable without the Bible

All these things cause health issues for one:

Fornification- STIs, unwanted pregnancies, broken families due to adultery, etc..which leads to a number of other issues such as single moms living in poverty, higher homicide rate, etc. Homosexual MEN tend to have a higher rate of domestic abuse as well as a higher rate of STIs. The opposite is true for lesbians.

Gluttony - eating too much causes health issues - heart attacks, cancer, etc. Drinking too much causes a number of health issues. I think you understand.

Drunkeness - see above

 

[EnemyPartyII]

broken families due to adultery

well I did say WITH THE INFORMED CONSENT OF ALL INVOLVED

unwanted pregnancies,

are totally avoidable with adequate contraception... and, by the way, unwanted pregnancys occur within marriage as well, so this is a false dichotomy

higher homicide rate, etc

due to fornication? Or from adultery related family breakdown? like I say, I'm not condoning adultery.

Homosexual MEN tend to have a higher rate of domestic abuse

which rather breaches the "informed consent" rider, doesn't it?

Gluttony - eating too much causes health issues - heart attacks, cancer, etc. Drinking too much causes a number of health issues. I think you understand.

Sure. Moderation in all things is a good idea... but if someone wants to eat to the point of heart failure... assuming that they have the informed consent of anyone who will be effected by their death... what is intrinsically wrong about it?

 

[Gusoceros]

But whats wrong with them? Other than what the Bible says? You seem to be of the opinion that there is an INHERRENT wrongness to them... and if so, I'm interested how you arrive at this point? If there is, infact, an inherrent wrongness to these things, it should be discernable without the Bible

The standard of right and wrong IS inherant, it is absolute. I am assuming you agree- because by the fact that you are arguing with me, you are showing that you beleive one of us to be right, and the other wrong, and that assumes a standard bigger than both our opinions.

Discerning requires a standard of comparison- as I have already shown- when you remove the absolute standard- God's Word, then you are leaving it up to personal opinion. The facts are the same, but some will say they dont matter as much as others. Without a comparison by which to measure, you are left with the baseless function of applying one's own opinion with which to discern.

You are asking me why is my personal desire and opinion not enough to identify what is right and wrong. History is replete with examples of how this fails, and only in a huge way.

G

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You are asking me why is my personal desire and opinion not enough to identify what is right and wrong. History is replete with examples of how this fails, and only in a huge way.

Really? give me one example from history where personal desire, coupled with the informed consent rider, has resulted in such a failure?

 

[Gusoceros]

Really? give me one example from history where personal desire, coupled with the informed consent rider, has resulted in such a failure?

A rather bizarre, but poignant example:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/12/13/germany.cannibal/index.html

Of course you can see the wreckage of families due to fornication, the loss of health due to gluttony, etc. There are numerous examples.

EDIT- it is my belief that abortion fits in here as well.

G

 

[EnemyPartyII]

EDIT- it is my belief that abortion fits in here as well.

Only if you believe the foetus is a person whose informed consent must be given...

if you believe this, then sure, abortion is wrong, if you don't believe this, then abortion is sometimes appropriate... so still no "inherrent wrongness"

Ah yes, the Cannibal case...

So... what was WRONG there? sure, shocking, and sure, unusual... but what makes it WRONG?

 

[Gusoceros]

Only if you believe the foetus is a person whose informed consent must be given...

if you believe this, then sure, abortion is wrong, if you don't believe this, then abortion is sometimes appropriate... so still no "inherrent wrongness"

Ah yes, the Cannibal case...

So... what was WRONG there? sure, shocking, and sure, unusual... but what makes it WRONG?

This is my point exactly- on why personal opinions really suck as the standard for right and wrong. The fact that you have to ask what is wrong about consensual cannibalism is proof of that point, if there ever was.

So- why is it that I should redefine what is right, to what I want and desire as the standard, when history is replete with examples of this approach failing.

G

 

[EnemyPartyII]

So- why is it that I should redefine what is right, to what I want and desire as the standard, when history is replete with examples of this approach failing.

When fully disclosed mutual consent is involved? Name 1!

The canibal exercise doesn;'t count unless you can explain what SPECIFICALY was wrong with it?

 

[WalkingforHim]

Can you show me a verse in the Bible that condemns cannibalism? And how about all the ones condoning obviously immoral things such as slavery, rape, genocide and others? I have yet to see anyone deal with those. I like people who try and justify such atrocities tell me how immoral I am because I refuse to believe those are the actions and commandment of a loving God. Hypocracy always makes me laugh.

 

[Gusoceros]

When fully disclosed mutual consent is involved? Name 1!

The canibal exercise doesn;'t count unless you can explain what SPECIFICALY was wrong with it?

It violates the nature of humanity

It violates the right to life

It is murder

Please answer my question-

Why does the standard of right and wrong need to be redefined for this example?

G

 

[EnemyPartyII]

It violates the nature of humanity

apparently not, or humans wouldn't have done it, nor would cannibalism be a common practice in other cultures

It violates the right to life

Would you violate the individuals right to determine when he wishes to end his own life?

It is murder

I disagree that it is necesarily comprabvle to murder if the victim gave full, informed consent

Why does the standard of right and wrong need to be redefined for this example?

who's redefining? I'm just trying to get you to admit that there is a certain illogical arbitraryness to certain of the Bible Laws... ones that snuck past the censor, as it were

 

[Gusoceros]

apparently not, or humans wouldn't have done it, nor would cannibalism be a common practice in other culture. Would you violate the individuals right to determine when he wishes to end his own life?I disagree that it is necesarily comprabvle to murder if the victim gave full, informed consentwho's redefining? I'm just trying to get you to admit that there is a certain illogical arbitraryness to certain of the Bible Laws... ones that snuck past the censor, as it were

Im not going to get into the minutia of this debate, as I believe it is counterproductive, and the fact that we are even arguing about it seems to make my point clearly- the point Im making is that personal opinion and desire, is a lousy standard of right and wrong- and when applied, you lose the basis to debate anything on moral grounds- as is illustrated here- people will make a case for anything.

G

 

[david_x]

can you provide real world examples of "hurt" in
a same sex marriage?
a Hindu marriage?
an atheist marriage?
I look forward to your many examples….

Have you seen the divorce rates in America. That is what comes from marriges that do not have God.

Do you think people having casual sex feel spiritually full afterwareds?

The canibal exercise doesn;'t count unless you can explain what SPECIFICALY was wrong with it?

I'm pretty sure that is addressed in the ten commandments. As well as the Golen rule.

rape, genocide

(Above response)

Sex outside marrige is wrong as far as rape goes.

Isrealites are told not to make slaves of each other, and as we are all christians, or have the abbility to become such, it is definiently wrong.

 

[WalkingforHim]

Have you seen the divorce rates in America. That is what comes from marriges that do not have God.

That's why Christian divorces are so high, right?

You can't tell me that 20% of America's population is responsible for our nearly 50% divorce rate.

Sex outside marrige is wrong as far as rape goes.

One can be raped even in the confines of marriage.

Isrealites are told not to make slaves of each other, and as we are all christians, or have the abbility to become such, it is definiently wrong.

Yet the Bible insructs them how to own and treat slaves. Uh huh.

 

[david_x]

Yet the Bible insructs them how to own and treat slaves. Uh huh.

How to be a slave.

One can be raped even in the confines of marriage.

That is not loving then is it.

That's why Christian divorces are so high, right?

You can't tell me that 20% of America's population is responsible for our nearly 50% divorce rate.

? come again.