Non-theist morality (ritual, morals, reject, homosexuality, blood)

[harleydavidson]

to giant space amoeba,,hi you gave some good answers,but some of these are complex questions. Seems there are too many questions here to do justice to them all.Quest. "is it wrong to kill in defense of another "..ans,,this falls under self defense,the ans. is what you can do for yourself , you can do for another. I you were in the others position being attacked ,you have a right to defend yourself,ergo you have that same right to defend the other person.Quest. Is it wrong to steal food for you dependents if there is no alternative,,,you answered the question in your initial question "is it wrong to steal..",,stealing is taking that which does not belong to you,and thats what you 're doing. When is taking anothers property ever justified?. Quest. is the death penalty just or immoral?,,isn't the death penalty just society trying to self defend itself? quest. is promiscuity immoral? here we come to the crux of many problems,,what is morality? is it just the mores ,and standards of society .? Is it just a subjective decision?,,or as the pundits say morality is is what man in society ought to do, to preserve the greatest good for the greatest number. Wld a promiscuious society be the best of all possible worlds?,or wld it be better off if man wld conqueor his passions? Have we struck gold yet in this goldmine?...Harley85

[harleydavidson]

to all ,,,seems to me most people here seem to think morality is cultural,or whatever society feels is right. That makes it a very subjective study doesn't it,if we have 10 people discussing morality ,we have 10 different ethical systems. Seems there are some moral imperatives present in humanity,present as written in the very hearts and minds of humanity. Who wld take issue with thou shall not murder [as the original Torrah states],,who wld take issue with thou shall not steal,or do unto others ,or do good and avoid evil. My point is that it's not a personal matter ,but one that is very objective,whether we like it or not...........harley85

[Storm]

Originally Posted by PureX

First, I would like to point out that the laws of the United States are NOT based on "judeo-Christian concepts of good and evil, sin and righteousness", or any other religious concepts.

Please see post #21 for clarification.

[methylatedghosts]

Originally Posted by Random

See the answer about promiscuity. A woman has the right to do with her body as she wishes. However, some choices are patently better and more spiritually potent than others.

Not trying to make a big deal of it. Only I'm curious as to why woman? What not a male prostitute...?

Just something to think about maybe - break through the stereotypes.

[harleydavidson]

to methylodghost,,hi in reply to your recent post ,,you say women have a right to do with her body as she wishes,,wrongo!!,,she is forbidden to become a drug addict by law,she has to stop at a red light in traffic,in most states prostitution is illegal, she has a moral imperative to do good and avoid evil etc,perhaps you may wish to re-examine your statement........harley davidson

[methylatedghosts]

to methylodghost,,hi in reply to your recent post ,,you say women have a right to do with her body as she wishes,,wrongo!!,,she is forbidden to become a drug addict by law,she has to stop at a red light in traffic,in most states prostitution is illegal, she has a moral imperative to do good and avoid evil etc,perhaps you may wish to re-examine your statement........harley davidson

No, that wasn't me that said that.

But I will say:
- It would have been in context with prostitution
- She only has to stop at a red traffic light if she doesn't want to get fined or wants to be safe
- Just because she's forbidden to be a drug addict by law doesn't mean that it will stop if she wishes so.
- Prosititution is legal in NZ, and even if it wasn't, it still wont stop her if she really wants to do so.
- And as a side point, for me, "good" and "evil" do not exist.

[harleydavidson]

to methylatedghost,,hi and sorry I indicated that you posted that piece, my apologies.I understand what you are saying,but you bring up two points. One is the idea of a right,I believe a right is something that is natural to man ,,you are born with it and it can not ne given away..The founding fathers, good deists that they were ,recognized this and quoted life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness as rights.So she is not born with a "right " to violate the law. Secondly,for you good and evil do not exist,,another subjective idea. It seems to me this forum is filled with a lot of subjectivity which is unusual for people that are trying to find objective truth,,[but I suppose truth does not exist for you either]. Webster has many definitions of good,simply put ,it is something benefical to you ,,do you disagree with that? [but you can not disagree,as that wld benefit you ,and you don't believe in that ! lol].........harley davidson

[PureX]

Originally Posted by harleydavidson

to methylatedghost,,hi and sorry I indicated that you posted that piece, my apologies.I understand what you are saying,but you bring up two points. One is the idea of a right,I believe a right is something that is natural to man ,,you are born with it and it can not ne given away..The founding fathers, good deists that they were ,recognized this and quoted life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness as rights.So she is not born with a "right " to violate the law. Secondly,for you good and evil do not exist,,another subjective idea. It seems to me this forum is filled with a lot of subjectivity which is unusual for people that are trying to find objective truth,,[but I suppose truth does not exist for you either]. Webster has many definitions of good,simply put ,it is something benefical to you ,,do you disagree with that? [but you can not disagree,as that wld benefit you ,and you don't believe in that ! lol].........harley davidson

But what is good for me, is often not good for you. The relative nature of value is very difficult to transcend. Perhaps impossible. No one would argue that "goodness" as a value does not occur. The problem is that it's not an absolute value. It's relative to the criteria being used to assess it, and therefor to the person setting that criteria. There's really no way around that, that I can see. So the implication that "goodness" somehow supports the existence of a kind and loving God becomes itself a relative conclusion: ie, a subjective one.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by PureX

But what is good for me, is often not good for you.

Is "what is good" = "good"? I mean, is the something that is good for you and the something that is good for me "good" in the same way?