Muslim headscarves (3 Viewers)

[Riqtay]

Your absolutely correct. Some men would have to be wifeless, due to reasons I have explained earlier. Such a society would go through a tought time and be very unlucky.

 

[Sonic]

If there are a few women, and they cannot have multiple husbands then the men will be wifeless, no?

see above [ten chars]

 

[Riqtay]

I am interested to know Sonic, do you belong to a certain religion or are you athiest?

 

[Sonic]

you haven't seen my signature?? im muslim

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Alrite, going along with the Islamic belief, if they are not married or with someone, is there any harm in that situation?

yes there is.

What is harmful about it?

But suppose that you are not married or with someone, then what is wrong with that?

the whole point is that you shouldn't be looking because it brings on desires and makes ppl do things which lead to them regrettibng later (such as rape,lust, etc)

Desiring a women, even intently, does not mean the person is going to rape her. I do not know where you get that idea from, but in my mind that is quite absurd.

My idea of noblility, purity and righteousness is very different from yours.

Can I just note that your idea about nobility, purity, etc is just the result of a construct. There is nothing factual about it. Those terms are moral claims where you attempt to define someone according to what you think is good or bad. This assumes that there is such a thing as morality.

Let me ask you a couple of question. Do you think a pornstar is righteous, pure or noble? What do you believe to be righteous, noble or pure?

First of all, use clearer words. What you are really saying is the extent to which someone behaves morally. Whether they are good or bad. It is an ethical claim.

So in response to your question, I would say that a person is morally good if they act in such a way to maximise the well-being of the greatest number of human beings possible (as much as is practical and reasonable in their situation). By "well-being" I mean pleasure and happiness.

Applying that definition of "good" to your porn star example: if porn stars act in such a way that they increase the well-being of human beings then they are acting ethically. I am not sure what the precise effects of porn are -- there may be detrimental consequences -- but from my perspective they do not seem to be causing any harm.

I believe that nobility is an absolute rather than a relative concept but I would like to hear your response.

You believe that there is an objective morality. A universal good and bad. My response is that I do not believe that at all. There is nothing factual about morality -- what is good or bad is the result of human feeling when we look at certain behaviour. Feeling. There is nothing objective in the real world that you can analyse to find something actually "wrong".

But I do, as outlined above, have a sense of what I deem to be morally good. This is because one makes a baseline assumption that pleasure or happiness is good (and displeasure and unhappiness is bad). I think that that is the ultimate starting point of moral consideration when you want to set-up a moral framework for humankind.

You cannot quantify what is righteous and what isn't. Rather it is quite evident what is righteous and what isn't.

No, what you believe is "evident" is just your gut reaction - your feelings. That doesn't prove anything. If you actually question what makes something good or bad I think you will be left without an answer.

I believe that a pornstar is not noble, pure or righteous simply because the pornstar is engaging in sexual intercource with no shame.

(Again, just a note, please do not use vague words - let us simply use "morally good" or even just "good". Words like "pure" and "righteous" are loaded words that carry very vague and unhelpful connotations.)

You said that you believe that pornstars are not morally good because they have sex without shame. Now, what you fail to answer is why is having sex without shame bad?

We are humans not animals.

Well humans are really just animals with the ability for rational thought. A very important trait!

Religion has been sent down to us to teach that we are different to animals.

("Religion" describes many sets of beliefs all over the world, so I assume you mean that all those religions were formed to pass ethical values through the generations. I assume that is what you mean.)

While animals have instinct and will satiate their desires (ie food and sex) in any way possible, we humans are built in a more dignified and noble manner.

Ah, again you use loaded words -- "dignified and noble". What do they mean? Really, in the context in which you use them, they simply mean more civilised. That is, our knowledge and technologies are more advanced. But so what?

Fornication as I have explained earlier has with it many good points yet the bad points outweight the good points.

Please explain the bad points?

It is up to us to implement noble acts to be different from animals. By having sexual relations outside of marriage, we are no better than a mere animal who cannot control its desires.

That is a moral claim - "we should not do X". What you fail to do is give a logical justification for that claim.

You suggest that we would be "no different than animals". So what? Your point about "being like animals" is not a justification. Animals have many positive traits that we don't have. Eagles have far better eyesight than human beings. Carrots improve vision. Do you deprive your child of carrots because then we would "be like animals" - (ie. have good vision)?

What actually makes it bad to have sex out of marriage? There is no logical justification for such a moral claim.

 

[withoutaface]

By eating we are no more than a mere animal who cannot control its desires.

 

[Sonic]

what is harmful about it?

Desiring a women, even intently, does not mean the person is going to rape her. I do not know where you get that idea from, but in my mind that is quite absurd.

ok what is harmful is that ppl will be tempted to act on their fantsies.. the whole point is to NOT allow that window of oppurtunity to be available... thus eliminating all possible acts of lust , rape , sex

 

[MoonlightSonata]

ok what is harmful is that ppl will be tempted to act on their fantsies.. the whole point is to NOT allow that window of oppurtunity to be available... thus eliminating all possible acts of lust , rape , sex

1. I just said to you that desiring a woman does not mean people are going to rape her.

2. What is wrong with sex, or lust for that matter?

 

[sly fly]

^
1. Ofcourse it doesn't, but it increases the chance. Anyway, rape is an extreme....desiring a woman may not lead to rape but it could lead to other things like harassing her, touching her indecently etc etc

2. There's nothing wrong with sex or lust for the one you are married to

 

[Not-That-Bright]

2. There's nothing wrong with sex or lust for the one you are married to

What is wrong with sex or lust with people you are not married to....

 

[SashatheMan]

maybe people who believe that finding a woman attractive leads to rape, need to learn to control themselves instead of trying to control someone else, by making them wear more clothes.

 

[Riqtay]

Moonlight Sonata, I think that you believe in morality (even though you cannot see it) yet conform to the view that morality should be derived from societies preferences rather that from a religion.

I would first like to state that morals came about through religion. An absolute morality which is timeless and doesn't change is what religion promotes.

Relative morality is very dangerous indeed as different groups of people would have different views concerning morals.

For example, a group may think that killing the next person you see is completely wrong, while another may deem that appropriate.

Society which chooses to change morals and their way of life is a society that will soon accept things that it finds totally unacceptable in the present.

For example, homosexuality was frowned upon in the western world over 100 years ago, and now it is becoming more and more acceptable. With this trend of what is deemed moral shifting, it is not out of the question that it may be legal for humans to marry animals and it being not frowned upon (eved though it takes away the nobility from a human in my belief).

It is even safe to assume that incest may be legalised and not frowned upon in the future. This is what is worrying about relative morality which is borne out by society.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Moonlight Sonata, I think that you believe in morality (even though you cannot see it) yet conform to the view that morality should be derived from societies preferences rather that from a religion.

The world is in moral decay, say the theists, because of "moral relativism." Only a divine power makes possible an absolute standard of right and wrong, they say. And yet, entirely aside from the evil that men (and women) do, there is much that is terrible and unjust in the world, so that if there be a God, we realize, He can not be both all-good and all-powerful. Because if He were, He would put an end to such things.

But I'm afraid the situation is much, much worse even than that. Four hundred years before Jesus Christ is supposed to have been born, Socrates asked "whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods." Socrates also observed that the gods--plural-- argued and disagreed about right and wrong as much as human beings. He got around this by supposing that that which all the gods approved was the good, and that which they all objected to was the evil, and that all else was neither good nor evil. He might just as well have considered the problem of a single god-- like that of the Christian Bible--who's inconsistent about what is beloved. But, as we know only too well, there simply is no honest way out of contradictions like that.

So let's just consider a strictly theoretical situation. Just for the sake of argument, let's suppose there's a God, and that He, She, or It is the absolute standard of morality. Is right and wrong then simply no more than this God's say-so? Or is what is right loved by this God and what is wrong hated by this God because of what right and wrong are in themselves?

In the first instance, if good and evil are no more than the product of the will of a divine power, and if that will is truly free, then such a God could, with a thought, cause what we consider to be the most repugnant and heinous criminal act to become the highest virtue. Now the further question would arise, of course, as to whether if this happened we would know it. Why? Because of "the moral law within us," as the philosopher Immanuel Kant put it, or "the work of the law written in our hearts," as "Saint Paul" acknowledged ( Romans 2: 15). If morality is the say-so of a God, then presumably, like the gravitational effects of a massive body, any change in His (or Her or Its) will would cause our own consciences to be instantaneously altered. I've never heard of this happening, though.

At any rate, if there is a God, and if this God's will determines what is right and wrong, then this supposed God's being all-good is no more than His (or Her or Its) being all-powerful. Is that an absolute morality? I don't think so. Rather, it's a morality that's completely relative to His (or Her or Its) desire. In a word--well, three actually--it's *might makes right*. It's another version of the law of the jungle. How's that for an admirable system of morality?

The only uncertainty remaining is whether it's more or less pathetic than the alternative situation of a God who is Himself (or Herself or Itself) subject to a logically anterior or prior standard of morality. That would be the case in the second instance of things that are good being beloved by God because they're good, because, of course, that puts God on the same level with human beings. It makes Him (or Her or It) irrelevant.

Well, we know He--or She or It--is irrelevant. That's why we're revolted by such Biblical stories as that of Yahweh asking Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac as a burnt offering--as if an all-good God could be pleased by a criminal act. Did Abraham really think he was flattering Yahweh to agree to do such a thing? It's curious that this same God is also supposed to have issued orders of mass extermination, orders that "The Good Book" tells us were actually carried out with less hesitation than Abraham had in preparing to kill his own son.

Well, so much for theistic "absolute morality." It's anything but.

There you go ..... have fun

 

[Riqtay]

By actually challenging the moral guidelines of God you are actually challenging God himself and assuming that God is at the same level of humans.

If morality is based on Gods desires, so be it. He is the one who created this universe so his laws are supreme.

My arguments might be decorated with religious dogma, yet still contain reason concerning the existence of God and absolute morality. (which I have explained in detail earlier). See previous threads.

I would like someone to explain to me the pros of relative morality and its benefits in the short and long term.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

By actually challenging the moral guidelines of God you are actually challenging God himself and assuming that God is at the same level of humans.

If morality is based on Gods desires, so be it. He is the one who created this universe so his laws are supreme.

My arguments might be decorated with religious dogma, yet still contain reason concerning the existence of God and absolute morality. (which I have explained in detail earlier). See previous threads.

I would like someone to explain to me the pros of relative morality and its benefits in the short and long term.

Well I can't see the point in debating the pro's and con's given that absolute morality can not exist. If you want to argue the pro's and con's of pretending that absolute morality exists than I can help you there.

Of course if absolute morality did (somehow) exist, it would be perfect by its definition. Another problem is, if absolute morality did (somehow) exist, would we not find it through the use of logical reasoning within relative morality? Would not therefore the best way to discover this absolute morality be through relative morality, challenging and questioning different morals?

 

[withoutaface]

By actually challenging the moral guidelines of God you are actually challenging God himself and assuming that God is at the same level of humans.

If morality is based on Gods desires, so be it. He is the one who created this universe so his laws are supreme.

My arguments might be decorated with religious dogma, yet still contain reason concerning the existence of God and absolute morality. (which I have explained in detail earlier). See previous threads.

I would like someone to explain to me the pros of relative morality and its benefits in the short and long term.

Relative morality allows people to define themselves and make their own decisions without harming others, and creates countries such as Australia, whereas absolute morality creates countries such as Afghanistan where Muslim laws are upheld to the point of fascism.

 

[Riqtay]

Without a face, have you read my previous threds concerning morality? If not, have a look at them and tell me you views and your arguments against.

 

[veterandoggy]

Without a face, have you read my previous threds concerning morality? If not, have a look at them and tell me you views and your arguments against.

his mind has been decayed, and all that is left is a wrinkly lump that lives off criticising muslims

 

[withoutaface]

How bout I give you some examples:

Muslim law: Gay sex is forbidden
Result: A whole heap of homosexuals extremely pissed off, no real net benefit to the greater community.

Relative law: Have gay sex if you wish to.
Result: Gay people happier, and no effect on those who are not gay because they're not in the bedrooms where these acts occur.

 

[veterandoggy]

ntb, why did you make your font that big? i think we can read smaller font.