Morals????

[SeaCat]

Okay so I have sucked down a couple of cold ones. My thoughts may not be the most coherent. That being said I do have a question about morals.

Who declares what they are?

You know of what I speak. Nudity, Marriage and sexuality. Who declares what is correct and what isn't? How do they claim the right to be the purveryers of what is right? How can they claim the ability to tell everyone what is correct? On what do they base their views?

Cat

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Morals are a personal thing. We all have them. That line that we won't cross. We don't all agree and we never will. We are too individual for our own good, even when we flock into groups we still set ourselves apart in the smallest ways.

 

[angelicminx]

Why Cat, don't you know that 'THEY' are perfect in every form and fashion, and everyone should see everything the same way 'THEY' do? I'm shocked you don't know that. LOL!! I've often asked myself and those around me the same questions. I'm considered a freak in my world. Hmm..

Hugs to ya!
Minx

 

[Stella_Omega]

This is where not giving a damn makes a great big difference. I have never let anyone force their morals on me about sex, nudity, marriage or sexuality.

On the other hand, I have learned to respect other people's personal values and avoid running over them. If I knew someone had agreed to fidelity in their relationship, for instance, it behooves me to respect that, mostly because it impacts another person-- one to whom I have no relationship.

Likewise sexuality. I don't seduce straight women. Of course-- some women are bi but never noticed it before...

And if I know that nudity makes someone very uncomfortable, I'll avoid them when I'm starkers. Just because I'm nice that way.

 

[wmrs2]

Okay so I have sucked down a couple of cold ones. My thoughts may not be the most coherent. That being said I do have a question about morals.

Who declares what they are?

You know of what I speak. Nudity, Marriage and sexuality. Who declares what is correct and what isn't? How do they claim the right to be the purveryers of what is right? How can they claim the ability to tell everyone what is correct? On what do they base their views?

Cat

Morals are based on two ways of thinking. One is based on self evident premises which includes all revealed morals. Some say these revealed morals have been written down in sacred books and manuscripts and have always been here. These morals are independent of man's interactions and exist in a frame of spiritual laws. Such frames or forms are entities such as logic, the scientific method, laws of gravity, physics, medicine, psychology, ethics, etc. These are all entities although they are not visible with the eye but these are visible and verifiable with the the mind and spirit of man. These morals are not created by man and are what many people believe is evidence of a God Creator.

Morals that are self evident act as restrains on man's lustful, carnal nature and a motivation for deeds of love, charity and brotherhood for the spiritual side of man. Morals that were created with man are rational, unchangeable, and eternal and, thus, makes it possible to use rock solid logic to evaluate values of good and evil. Logic is a main characteristic of God created morals. In God created morals the process of a base or premise follows a strait path of deduction and induction, the main tool of identifying truth. An example of correct deduction and induction is the scientific method.

The second type of morality can best be termed by such words as humanism, moral relativity, individual freewill, atheism, and a few other such terms that signifies independence from the restraints of pre-existent moral demands. The moral relativist derives his authority for moral behavior from social interaction wherein he believes that moral codes must change with the times of men. What may be considered moral today may be immoral tomorrow. What is perverted today may be normal tomorrow. Some say that this morality is based on man's lust like hunger, abnormal sex, and uncontrolled anger. There is freedom in this style of morality where one can renounce established moral restraints and replace these old restrains with new and ever changing restraints. Logic does not play a highly significant role in moral relativity and humanism, but are promoted by changing events. Liberals use this type of reasoning by referring to the Constitution of the USA as a living organism such as Hegelian logic would create.

There it is, short but sweet.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Okay so I have sucked down a couple of cold ones. My thoughts may not be the most coherent. That being said I do have a question about morals.

Who declares what they are?

You know of what I speak. Nudity, Marriage and sexuality. Who declares what is correct and what isn't? How do they claim the right to be the purveryers of what is right? How can they claim the ability to tell everyone what is correct? On what do they base their views?

Cat

As far as I'm concerned, morals are strictly an individual thing, and nobody has any business dictating those of anybody else except, to some degree, their minor children. I am referring to actions that harm nobody, such as the prohibition of gay marriage and fornication among adults and porn and you all know what else.

 

[wmrs2]

Morals are a personal thing. We all have them. That line that we won't cross. We don't all agree and we never will. We are too individual for our own good, even when we flock into groups we still set ourselves apart in the smallest ways.

The fact is that morals are never a personal thing. The morals you have affect your children in a big way and also affects the opinions of others about you. Since you will cross any line you so desire, you claim moral freedom. This only exist in your mind and is never a part of the real world. As I have pointed out your morals are based on the lust of the carnal nature of man and is mostly void of logic.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The fact is that morals are never a personal thing. The morals you have affect your children in a big way and also affects the opinions of others about you. Since you will cross any line you so desire, you claim moral freedom. This only exist in your mind and is never a part of the real world. As I have pointed out your morals are based on the lust of the carnal nature of man and is mostly void of logic.

Morals are always a personal thing, as long as no unwilling person or vulnerable person is involved. In your previous post, you referred to "abnormal sex." Among consenting adults, there is no such thing.

I really hope that you don't believe that you or anybody but my wife can tell me what adult to fuck or whose box to lick.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I really hope that you don't believe that you or anybody but my wife can tell me what adult to fuck or whose box to lick.

Why should you give a fuck what wrm thinks about you or your box-licking preferences? All those little wrms can huff and babble all they want to. They can claim that morals are "universal" but claiming doesn't make their delusions true.

Just about the perfect definition of "so what?"

 

[wmrs2]

This is where not giving a damn makes a great big difference. I have never let anyone force their morals on me about sex, nudity, marriage or sexuality.

On the other hand, I have learned to respect other people's personal values and avoid running over them. If I knew someone had agreed to fidelity in their relationship, for instance, it behooves me to respect that, mostly because it impacts another person-- one to whom I have no relationship.

Likewise sexuality. I don't seduce straight women. Of course-- some women are bi but never noticed it before...

And if I know that nudity makes someone very uncomfortable, I'll avoid them when I'm starkers. Just because I'm nice that way.

In your first statement you admit that you are in a constant state of rebellion. You say," I have never let anyone force their morals on me about sex, nudity, marriage or sexuality." This may be true but you isolate yourself in a narcissistic world where you are alone by not giving a damn what anybody thinks. That is what you just said.

You don't care what your parents think, what your children think, or what your close friends think. Yes, we all agree that is you to a tee.

"On the other hand, I have learned to respect other people's personal values and avoid running over them," you say. People who know you think that is laughable. There is no one that believes that, not even your closest lover. You are possibly the most narrow minded person on the forum. That is the reason you are the leader of RABD.

 

[The_Fool]

Morals and moral behavior are defined by the group, whomever that group may happen to be. Behaviors are established by what is "right" and what is "wrong" for the benefit of the defining group. Where it gets fucked up is when one group is in conflict with another group on the rights and the wrongs of behavior. For just about any behavior, one culture will vilify it while another will consider it to be of the highest moral value.

 

[Dragonlipz]

In your first statement you admit that you are in a constant state of rebellion. You say," I have never let anyone force their morals on me about sex, nudity, marriage or sexuality." This may be true but you isolate yourself in a narcissistic world where you are alone by not giving a damn what anybody thinks. That is what you just said.

You don't care what your parents think, what your children think, or what your close friends think. Yes, we all agree that is you to a tee.

"On the other hand, I have learned to respect other people's personal values and avoid running over them," you say. People who know you think that is laughable. There is no one that believes that, not even your closest lover. You are possibly the most narrow minded person on the forum. That is the reason you are the leader of RABD.

Worms....you off yo' meds agin, now I'm not gonna tell ya twice.....git back on em and we'll figure out what's what. those voices in yore haid are just some bad juju you mustn't listen to.....
The light, Worms, head for the light.....

 

[wmrs2]

As far as I'm concerned, morals are strictly an individual thing, and nobody has any business dictating those of anybody else except, to some degree, their minor children. I am referring to actions that harm nobody, such as the prohibition of gay marriage and fornication among adults and porn and you all know what else.

It is debatable whether prohibition of gay marriage and fornication among adults harms anybody else or society.

You would have to argue this point from a basis of carnal lust and not logic. You must determine if you live in the world by yourself or do other people matter. You include minor children as an exception to your don't give a damn attitude. This should be a hint to you that your logic is the same as pedophile logic.

 

[wmrs2]

Why should you give a fuck what wrm thinks about you or your box-licking preferences? All those little wrms can huff and babble all they want to. They can claim that morals are "universal" but claiming doesn't make their delusions true.

Just about the perfect definition of "so what?"

Good argument based on a narcissistic personality. But, you live in a world with other people, or maybe not.

 

[Dragonlipz]

The fact is that morals are never a personal thing. The morals you have affect your children in a big way and also affects the opinions of others about you. Since you will cross any line you so desire, you claim moral freedom. This only exist in your mind and is never a part of the real world. As I have pointed out your morals are based on the lust of the carnal nature of man and is mostly void of logic.

I tol ya not to smoke that shit, and you didnt listen to me, nossir, not one bit.....Sleep that shit off and call me in the morning......right after the aspirin in the lime and coconut......
634-5789 call me.....whenever.....you want to....any old time.....call me.....

 

[wmrs2]

Morals and moral behavior are defined by the group, whomever that group may happen to be. Behaviors are established by what is "right" and what is "wrong" for the benefit of the defining group. Where it gets fucked up is when one group is in conflict with another group on the rights and the wrongs of behavior. For just about any behavior, one culture will vilify it while another will consider it to be of the highest moral value.

You really did not say anything. What you said is self evident, especially of communist states and other totalitarian groups or governments. I say this type of morality leads to more evil than you would accept in a democratic society based on sefl evident laws.

 

[Dragonlipz]

You really did not say anything. What you said is self evident, especially of communist states and other totalitarian groups or governments. I say this type of morality leads to more evil than you would accept in a democratic society based on sefl evident laws.

Worms33 - I threw down on Jimmy at 22 street. He ain't gonna front ya any o that shit no mo'. You need to get past that shit, calm down, take yer meds, and get right with Jesus....yo' mama would be so damned happy

 

[jomar]

Kohlberg seemed to have a handle on it.

 

[wmrs2]

Worms....you off yo' meds agin, now I'm not gonna tell ya twice.....git back on em and we'll figure out what's what. those voices in yore haid are just some bad juju you mustn't listen to.....
The light, Worms, head for the light.....

I was headed that way but you cut me off. Is that the best you can do to rebuff my rock solid logic? You keep showing your snake tail logic guided by narcissism. You best stop taking whatever you have been consuming. It's not improving your character at all.

 

[wmrs2]

I tol ya not to smoke that shit, and you didnt listen to me, nossir, not one bit.....Sleep that shit off and call me in the morning......right after the aspirin in the lime and coconut......
634-5789 call me.....whenever.....you want to....any old time.....call me.....

Why would I do that? I have your RABD ass hanging on my cross the way it is. Go look if you do not believe me. Have I skinned your snake hide too close to your brain and it died? Is that your problem?

 

[wmrs2]

Worms33 - I threw down on Jimmy at 22 street. He ain't gonna front ya any o that shit no mo'. You need to get past that shit, calm down, take yer meds, and get right with Jesus....yo' mama would be so damned happy

I gat ye, didn't I.

 

[amicus]

Okay so I have sucked down a couple of cold ones. My thoughts may not be the most coherent. That being said I do have a question about morals.

Who declares what they are?

You know of what I speak. Nudity, Marriage and sexuality. Who declares what is correct and what isn't? How do they claim the right to be the purveryers of what is right? How can they claim the ability to tell everyone what is correct? On what do they base their views?

Cat

~~~

Hello, Cat; good questions all. I am going to assume your question is sincere, regardless of a 'couple cold ones', that usually just puts me in the mood to write or pontificate, if need be.

Thus far you have been advised that, 'morals' are strictly individualistic and relative to time and place.

Then you have been advised that, "God" created morality and it is man's duty to obey those moral, absolute laws concerning human behavior.

Thirdly, you were most recently advised that 'morality' is the function of the group, a, 'majority rules', kind of a thing.

None of the above are true.

None of the above are demonstrable by reason or logic.

Ah, but, my motorcycle riding acquaintance on the forum, fear not, for there is an answer to your question.

It ain't easy.

"...Nudity, Marriage and sexuality..."

You perhaps had an order in mind or an arbitrary list that came out that way; nonetheless, let us consider 'nudity', first, as you listed it first.

Being an interest of mine once upon a time, pondering the reason for 'skirts', that women wore( and later, high heels, but thas another thing..), led me to an exploration of, clothing in general, ahm, that which covers up nudity.

Man is the only animal that 'clothes' himself.

Why?

Partially, any rational person would say, for warmth, or protection against the sun, the elements; clothing is a practical means of staying warm and perhaps dry.

In mild climates where such practical needs are secondary, people usually chose to cover the erogenous zones, breasts and pubic area for women, pubic area for men.

Why?

Some cultures, to this day, consider the entire female body as, 'erogenous', and a half a billion Muslim women cover themselves in public.

Isn't it fun thinking about nudity in rational terms?

Erect nipples indicate sexual arousal (or a chill), besides, breasts tend to sag with age if not supported; thus, practical again.(research the origin of the bra)

An erect Penis, except for the, 'morning board', (heh), also indicates sexual arousal.

There are many, natural and cultural reasons, to, 'cloak', the evident and obvious sexual arousal of both sexes.(life might be one continuous orgy if not)

Okay...I have shown and illustrated the path by which one might journey to rationally, logically and objectively pursue a knowledge of morals. The rest is up to you.

However; as I said, it ain't easy, but it is possible, and if you are serious in wanting to, 'know' how to comprehend, in absolute terms, what, 'moral', means, I offer the following:

http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000292.php

Rand's second major achievement, was to draw out the implications of this realist morality. In contrast to most modern doctrines, for Rand (as for Aristotle), ethics is not primarily about how other people should be treated. Nor does it consist in adherence to the prohibitions and prescriptions of a deity. Rather, the key subject matter of ethics is the relationship of each individual to his own potential as a rational being.

The role of ethics is to codify the values necessary for the actualisation of that distinctively human potential, where "value" designates that which one wishes to attain or keep. The identification of those values is necessary, because being rational is not an automatic process: even more than Aristotle, Rand stressed that man is characterised by volitional consciousness and rationality.

~~~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_ethics

In contrast to conventional morality, the naturalist ethics propounded by Rand, following Aristotle, highlights the vital importance of happiness as a goal, and of rational self interest as a guide to it. Happiness is the state of mind that results from achievement of one's values [Ayn Rand, "The Objectivist Ethics" (1961) in The Virtue of Selfishness (henceforth VOS), (NY: Signet, 1964), p.28]; Aristotle called it "the bloom on the activity". Insofar as the values sought are the ones necessary for living as a rational being, happiness will be the result of living rationally [Ibid, p.29]:

~~~

It is really no different than a formal course to learn Geometry or Algebra; philosophy, like mathematics or any science, has a vocabulary and a terminology specific to the discipline.

That is but a beginning, the tip of the iceberg, so to speak...

Good luck!

Amicus

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
As far as I'm concerned, morals are strictly an individual thing, and nobody has any business dictating those of anybody else except, to some degree, their minor children. I am referring to actions that harm nobody, such as the prohibition of gay marriage and fornication among adults and porn and you all know what else.

It is debatable whether prohibition of gay marriage and fornication among adults harms anybody else or society.

You would have to argue this point from a basis of carnal lust and not logic. You must determine if you live in the world by yourself or do other people matter. You include minor children as an exception to your don't give a damn attitude. This should be a hint to you that your logic is the same as pedophile logic.

If two people wish to form a marriage contract and there are no other legal bars, they should be able to do so with no difficulty. It is nobody's business if they get married or not. If two single adults want to fuck or perform some other sex act, they should have a right to do so, and it's nobody's business but theirs. Nobody is harmed by either action, including society as a whole. I did say fornication, by the way. I did not say adultery, in which there is another person possibly affected.

I am partially arguing from a position of carnal lust and I don't deny it. At the same time, I do not lust carnally for other men, so gay marriage has nothing to do with me personally. I also feel it is neither your business nor mine if two people are fucking or having some other form of sex, even if one of them is paying the other.

I feel people have a certain obligation to raise their children in a moral way. What does that have to do with pedophiles, except that there is an obligation to warn the children about the nice old man who wants to give them candy.

 

[amicus]

Since the author of this thread did not follow up, perhaps it is destined to have an early demise.

"...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker

If two people wish to form a marriage contract

There is an old television series I enjoyed, "The Paper Chase", students pursuing a law degree at a prestigious University. 'Contract Law', was the subject of several episodes and therein lies the rub with same sex, Gay marriage.

Formal marriage in the United States, has been defined with precedent in case law, as between a man and a woman. This goes back as far as statutes have been kept and case law preserved.

Were a case of same sex marriage to reach the Supreme Court, and I doubt it would, the verdict would uphold precedent and case law.

Legislatures make laws, not the courts, and in every case when the people have voted they have done so in support of the legal definition of marriage.

Amicus

 

[Stella_Omega]

You include minor children as an exception to your don't give a damn attitude. This should be a hint to you that your logic is the same as pedophile logic.

That's not logical at all. An exception is an exception, not an inclusion.

And what is "pedophile logic?"