Random theological stuff - moved from Q about God

[hexwind]

I don't see the problem if any old habit whatsoever as long as it doesn't harm anyone, i mean, i have no problem with Old/Modern morality.

 

[Blowtus]

...as long as it doesn't harm anyone

This bit has seen the odd discussion or two before

 

[hexwind]

^ could you be more straight please? I didn't get it.

 

[krofius]

Because modern day morality is clearly the be all end all. Values will never shift again, we've got it right this time

Well I honestly don't know any way it could change in the future.
So you mean that in 2000 years maybe the word pedophile wont exist and it's okay again? I don't think we will shift downwards..If we shift upwards, things will just improve

 

[Blowtus]

Hexwind - the notion of what exactly constitutes 'harm' means that while everyone might agree with your statement, everybody could act in very different ways due to different ideas of 'harm'.

Krofius -

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

I assure you my moral reasoning is quite highly developed, and that I have put hours of thought into life and things related

Wow, that's almost a full day of total thought.

i think that if a person commits an act that is considered a crime, then the motivation for the crime should be used in determining the harshness of the punishment
let's take homicide for example
if i kill a serial rapist, because he has raped my mother/sister/daughter/girlfriend,
then my punishment for taking revenge should be a whole lot less severe than if i just kill a random person

a system of "universal moral truth" doesn't work, because it has the ability to become more and more strict
in the 1950's being homosexual was "universally" wrong across the entirety of the United States of America, it was just something that everybody accepted because everybody else accepted it, when you have "hard and fast" rules of saying "this action is wrong no matter why you've done it" people loose the ability to think for themselves, going back to homicide thing for a moment, "is killing someone wrong if you're killing someone that deserves to die?"

Supposing a man "deserves" to die because he raped your mother / sister / daughter / girlfriend, who exactly is qualified to make this judgement? You? I sure hope not, because you would likely be biased by your closeness to the victim. Perhaps some beaurocracy or democracy, then? Probably still no, because even if killing him is found to be an acceptable punishment, if you're a pure moral relativist, then you're obligated to withdrawn because you would have to accept that by his moral standards, it was acceptable for him to rape your mother / sister / daughter / girlfriend. Perhaps he even has a moral reason for concluding that your mother / sister / daughter / girlfriend "deserved" to be raped. Now what?

 

[Dak]

Wow, that's almost a full day of total thought.

Hours at a time.

Supposing a man "deserves" to die because he raped your mother / sister / daughter / girlfriend, who exactly is qualified to make this judgement? You? I sure hope not, because you would likely be biased by your closeness to the victim. Perhaps some beaurocracy or democracy, then? Probably still no, because even if killing him is found to be an acceptable punishment, if you're a pure moral relativist, then you're obligated to withdrawn because you would have to accept that by his moral standards, it was acceptable for him to rape your mother / sister / daughter / girlfriend. Perhaps he even has a moral reason for concluding that your mother / sister / daughter / girlfriend "deserved" to be raped. Now what?

What is your point?

 

[Blowtus]

Probably still no, because even if killing him is found to be an acceptable punishment, if you're a pure moral relativist, then you're obligated to withdrawn because you would have to accept that by his moral standards, it was acceptable for him to rape your mother / sister / daughter / girlfriend. Perhaps he even has a moral reason for concluding that your mother / sister / daughter / girlfriend "deserved" to be raped. Now what?

I tend to find moral absolutists view relativism through their own absolutist lens, and kind of miss the point
I have certain values. I understand and acknowledge that others have differing values for a variety of reasons, and that their is no inherent truth or value to any specific judgement. None of this stops me pursuing the ends *I* want, and believe to be moral / virtuous, it just affords me a tool for understanding and compromise, when such is desirable.

Sure, the guy in your example might have perfectly rational internal reasons for the rape. Just as I have perfectly rational internal reasons to want him incarcerated / dead. So we throw our hats in the ring of life, pursuing our desired ends, and end up where we may, both living virtuously according to our own standard, both able to understand the reasoning behind the different actions of others.

 

[hexwind]

Hexwind - the notion of what exactly constitutes 'harm' means that while everyone might agree with your statement, everybody could act in very different ways due to different ideas of 'harm'.

Do you mean that "harm" is subjective?
Maybe, but I think everyone knows what harm is in the sense of hurting someone verbally or physically. That's what I meant anyway.

 

[Blowtus]

No, that's the point - there is a massive grey area people do not agree on. Think passive smoking, making pornography available, not fully disclosing negative information about a product, airing out your dusty rugs near a neighbour who's allergic to them... the list of debatable issues is large

 

[hexwind]

at least the ones you mentioned are harmful, I mean, they make themselves feel better over other people's health/morals/the whole environment, that's harm indeed even tho the doer won't agree but it is.

 

[Opeth for life!!!!]

Then explain to me how 2 white people can produce a black baby (Or vice versa if they werent white)

MUTATIONS = changes of the necluotide sequence, that can alter the function of some proteins which are responsible of the skin coulor (Melanin) {I hope you've studied some biology!}
so.. yes 2 'white' people can produce a black baby!! and vice versa!

 

[Opeth for life!!!!]

1. Don't be so ignorant come on. I've found over 1000 reliable sources on the internet, it's good enough for me.

As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), pedophilia is specified as a form of paraphilia in which a person either has acted on intense sexual urges towards children, or experiences recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children that cause distress or interpersonal difficulty.
based on this definition of pedophilia , Muhammed is not a pedophile! he married Aisha by her own consent and her parents' consent too.. this was not some pervert's urges!!!

 

[Blowtus]

at least the ones you mentioned are harmful, I mean, they make themselves feel better over other people's health/morals/the whole environment, that's harm indeed even tho the doer won't agree but it is.

I have no interest in debating the specifics of every 'possible slight harm depending on your perspective', but I hope you get the point that it's far from cut and dried

 

[hexwind]

I have no interest in debating the specifics of every 'possible slight harm depending on your perspective', but I hope you get the point that it's far from cut and dried

Yeah of course,I won't get in such (endless) debate either, everything is obvious anyway

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Well.. Mohammed married a 9 years old girl, it IS a fact, according to what was told through the history, but you simply have to understand that things were different and I don't bother telling them again...

Slavery was practised back then too... does that make it OK?

 

[hexwind]

Slavery was practised back then too... does that make it OK?

You got me wrong dude.The things that were different was the body shape and the way of growing and so on. As I said before,I don't have any problem with either ancient traditions or recent ones unless they harm anyone, and while slavery does harm someone, so I'm not for it.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

You got me wrong dude.The things that were different was the body shape and the way of growing and so on. As I said before,I don't have any problem with either ancient traditions or recent ones unless they harm anyone, and while slavery does harm someone, so I'm not for it.

Actually body shape and such was not different then. Our species has not had any major body changes like that for tens of thousands of years.

 

[hexwind]

^I mean the way of growing dude, as I explained before, even peers from different places don't seem as like peers .

 

[krofius]

^I mean the way of growing dude, as I explained before, even peers from different places don't seem as like peers .

Even if it was okay being a pedophile back then, it doesn't make it okay today.
If someone massmurdered people 3000 years ago because it was nothing unnormal with killing people for no reason, does that make it okay?