Morality

[strange]

Morality has come up in a debate about homosexuals. So I'm starting a new thread on morality. I start this discussion out with a quote from Paul Tillich's Systematic Theology, Vol. III, pp. 38.

"The self-integration of life in the dimension of the spirit: morality, or the constitution of the personal self.--In man complete centeredness is essentially given, but it is not actually given until man actualizes it in freedom and through destiny. The act in which man actualizes his essential centeredness is the moral act. Moraity is the constitutive function of spirit. A moral act, therefore, is not an act in which some divine or human law is obeyed but an act in which life intergrates itself in the dimension of spirit, and this means as personality within a community. Morality is the function of life in which the centered self constitutes itself as a person; it is the totality of those acts in which a potentially personal life process becomes an actual person. Such acts happen continuously in a personal life; the constitution of the person as a person never comes to an end during his whole life process."

With this quote, I raise the question, "Is one's sexuality, in its self, a moral issue? And if so, how does one's sexuality become immoral?"

 

[whereismynotecard]

It is my belief that nothing is or isn't moral.

If there was such thing as morality, however, I couldn't see why sexuality could be a moral issue.
Unless any form of sex is immoral, none of it can be. What I mean is, it's either all or nothing.
If gay sex is immoral, so must hetero sex be. They are both gross.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

"The self-integration of life in the dimension of the spirit: morality, or the constitution of the personal self.--In man complete centeredness is essentially given, but it is not actually given until man actualizes it in freedom and through destiny. The act in which man actualizes his essential centeredness is the moral act. Moraity is the constitutive function of spirit. A moral act, therefore, is not an act in which some divine or human law is obeyed but an act in which life intergrates itself in the dimension of spirit, and this means as personality within a community. Morality is the function of life in which the centered self constitutes itself as a person; it is the totality of those acts in which a potentially personal life process becomes an actual person. Such acts happen continuously in a personal life; the constitution of the person as a person never comes to an end during his whole life process."

So many words, so little content.

That's quite a skill.

 

[TheKnight]

With this quote, I raise the question, "Is one's sexuality, in its self, a moral issue? And if so, how does one's sexuality become immoral?"

No. One's sexuality, in and of itself, is not immoral. It's not wrong to have certain sexual desires. The only things capable of being moral/immoral are actions. Not states of being.

 

[Humanistheart]

It is my belief that nothing is or isn't moral.

If there was such thing as morality, however, I couldn't see why sexuality could be a moral issue.
Unless any form of sex is immoral, none of it can be. What I mean is, it's either all or nothing.
If gay sex is immoral, so must hetero sex be. They are both gross.

I wouldn't go that far. All or nothing could imply then that all forms of sex are either right or wrong. Where as I would not put rape and child molestation in the same moral category as homo or hetero sex.

 

[Humanistheart]

Morality has come up in a debate about homosexuals. So I'm starting a new thread on morality. I start this discussion out with a quote from Paul Tillich's Systematic Theology, Vol. III, pp. 38.

"The self-integration of life in the dimension of the spirit: morality, or the constitution of the personal self.--In man complete centeredness is essentially given, but it is not actually given until man actualizes it in freedom and through destiny. The act in which man actualizes his essential centeredness is the moral act. Moraity is the constitutive function of spirit. A moral act, therefore, is not an act in which some divine or human law is obeyed but an act in which life intergrates itself in the dimension of spirit, and this means as personality within a community. Morality is the function of life in which the centered self constitutes itself as a person; it is the totality of those acts in which a potentially personal life process becomes an actual person. Such acts happen continuously in a personal life; the constitution of the person as a person never comes to an end during his whole life process."

With this quote, I raise the question, "Is one's sexuality, in its self, a moral issue? And if so, how does one's sexuality become immoral?"

On the premise of the quote you posted I'd say no, neither ones sexuality or even potentially ones sexual acts would be a moral issue. I however stopped carring about that authors opinion when I reached "Moraity is the constitutive function of spirit." This argument is based on the premise that there is such as a thing as the spirit, which is a mere belief.

The only true objective definition of morality is harm based. Everything else is an attempt to foster ones opinions or beliefs over another.

 

[strange]

No. One's sexuality, in and of itself, is not immoral. It's not wrong to have certain sexual desires. The only things capable of being moral/immoral are actions. Not states of being.

I would agree. Some would equate sex with morality and also equate sin with morality. As with sin, morality is about actions.

 

[strange]

On the premise of the quote you posted I'd say no, neither ones sexuality or even potentially ones sexual acts would be a moral issue. I however stopped carring about that authors opinion when I reached "Moraity is the constitutive function of spirit." This argument is based on the premise that there is such as a thing as the spirit, which is a mere belief.

The only true objective definition of morality is harm based. Everything else is an attempt to foster ones opinions or beliefs over another.

I would agree with the "harm based" definition.

 

[Dunemeister]

I would agree with the "harm based" definition.

Well, let's take a case of a man cheating on his wife. Assuming his wife doesn't find out, and assuming that the marriage is livable, should we say that, since there was no harm done, the cheater hasn't done anything immoral?

 

[Magic Man]

Well, let's take a case of a man cheating on his wife. Assuming his wife doesn't find out, and assuming that the marriage is livable, should we say that, since there was no harm done, the cheater hasn't done anything immoral?

Yes, it can get tricky. If you look at it more as "would it harm someone or something?", then your example falls into the "immoral" category. It would harm someone, but only doesn't because of another immoral act, lying (either directly or by omission).

 

[Humanistheart]

Yes, it can get tricky. If you look at it more as "would it harm someone or something?", then your example falls into the "immoral" category. It would harm someone, but only doesn't because of another immoral act, lying (either directly or by omission).

I concur with your conclusion to that example. Plus there are other reasons this would be unethical. For one, how can anyone manage an affair without spending money or time that otherwise would be spent on the wife/family? This detraction from family is surely harmful to that social structure and the people within it, be it just the wife or a litter of children and an elderly parent.

 

[Dunemeister]

Yes, it can get tricky. If you look at it more as "would it harm someone or something?", then your example falls into the "immoral" category. It would harm someone, but only doesn't because of another immoral act, lying (either directly or by omission).

Okay, well let's assume the wife is in a coma and probably would never know. The man confesses everything to his comatose wife but there's no chance she'll recover. Now there's no chance that his cheating will harm his wife. Would you say that now he's not doing anything immoral?

 

[Oberon]

The only true objective definition of morality is harm based. Everything else is an attempt to foster ones opinions or beliefs over another.

Without even getting into the problems of defining harm, you are already accepting that your opinion of morality (it is wrong to foster ones opinions or beliefs over another) is correct. Why? Why is it wrong to force people to do what I believe is right? Why is harming someone wrong? We have, already on this thread, an objection to such a code as objective:

It is my belief that nothing is or isn't moral.

If we were to take such a code and apply it, preventing a person with a nihilistic philosophy from harming another would be imposing one belief system on another.
Your belief in the "objectivity" of a moral code based on harm is indicative of a cultural bias. Plenty of cultures have had zero problems with harming others. Where is the "objective proof" that harming someone is wrong?

 

[Oberon]

And if so, how does one's sexuality become immoral?"

When I was a teenager, I was in an argument with my father (a convert to catholicism). I was arguing that religion and morality has no place in a legal system, because it can't be proved. There is no justification for imposing one's morals on another. He challenged me to come up with a society which did not use a moral code as a basis for laws.

This was a big problem. It started with "what is the goal of such a society, if there are no morals taken for granted?" For example, if the goal is the greatest happiness among citizens, this could be easily acheived by forcing 10% of the population to do the work of the rest, and ensuring most citizens could be spent doing what they wished.

Or take crime: low crime rates can be accomplished by imposing the death penalty for every infraction.

Every society must have a "moral sense" to function. No moral code is objectively provable, because we possess no test which will show the superiority of one code without assuming a priori things which make the test useless.

So, after that digression, to answer the OP, EVERY act is moral or immoral or neutral depending on the code one adopts. There have been very few societies throughout history which didn't legislate sex via laws and or opprobrium-based systems of communal function.
The smallest and most basic unit within society has always been, and largely continues to be, the family. So vital are familial ties to the make-up of societies that the vast majority of historical pre-urban or agrarian communities have an organizational structure and interpersonal relational network which revolves around “blood ties.” This is true not merely of tribal or clan-based societies but equally of medieval European peasantry, or Jewish villages under Hellenic supremacy, or modern day Arabic life in remote Middle Eastern communities. Generally, although not exclusively, outside the spheres of urban life, and especially (where it exists) among the economically disadvantaged strata of macrosociety, family literally is the community. As a given culture gains in coherence and complexity, social systems cease to be nearly exclusively based on clan-like networks of blood and marital relationships, but families remain (and this is true even of the modern West) as the basic unit of society wherein indoctrination into cultural norms occurs.
The reasons for this ubiquitous existence of social reliance on families for maintaining communal stability and integrity are manifold, but two reasons stand out as significant. First, given that familial relations, particularly between mother and child, are natural aspects of human nature, only advanced societies have the ability to fashion complex social institutions, such as boarding schools, necessary to supplant parental influence on children. Even when this is possible, it is seldom desirable (save for specific purposes, primarily political but occasionally religious) both for economic reasons, and for the inability of such institutions to adequately produce “model” members of society. The bulk of social learning occurs during childhood. The amount of behavior and cognitive modification needed by children make parents, who can provide these more consistently, and with a far more personal interest than any institution, typically far superior to any available alternative. Second, more important than the countless norms and taboos which children are required to learn is the development within these children of empathetic relationships. Moral systems based on opprobrium can encourage behavior modification independent of civil authority, but only when communal members truly “care” for and identify with other communal members can social cooperation and self-sacrifice occur. It is the extension of natural empathy between a child and his family to the community as a whole which enables social existence at all. The empathetic ties allow participants to engage injoint action by conferring to each individual sets of meaning, enabling them to bring to every interaction an interpretive framework, itself an outgrowth of each individual’s social understanding of their community and their place within it.

Clan-based society may serve here as a demonstrative paradigm. The loyalties of each member are arranged in an ever-expanding pattern of concentric circles. At the center is the immediate family, followed by circles of gradually lessening blood or marital ties until finally the entire clan (even to some extent the undesirables) is contained within the final circle. The clan thus functionally serves as an extended family. The natural emotional and empathetic ties of a member to those within the innermost circle exist, albeit to a lesser degree, between the member and those in any other circle. The Self of each member is formed from the knowledge of where that member fits in the community.

As sex and sexual relations have historically been associated with familial stability, and this is true to some extent even today, even from a non-morality based stand point there is reason for encouraging certain standards of sexual behavior.

 

[strange]

Every society must have a "moral sense" to function. No moral code is objectively provable, because we possess no test which will show the superiority of one code without assuming a priori things which make the test useless.

As sex and sexual relations have historically been associated with familial stability, and this is true to some extent even today, even from a non-morality based stand point there is reason for encouraging certain standards of sexual behavior.

Nobody can deny anyone their claim to be a person. No totalitarian ruler has ever succeeded in assimilating one's centeredness into their own centeredness. You may be able to destroy or exploit another but you cannot exploit their spirit. That is to say how homosexuals relate to others is their spirit in action. You cannot exploit their homosexuality, their interaction within the community. If every "interaction [establishes] an interpretive framework" then is it fair to suggest that any community could choose to intergrate homosexuals into itself "an outgrowth of each individual's social understanding of their community and there place within it." Won't this integration of homosexuals affirm their moral standing in said community?

This presupposes that the negative connotation associated with the morality of homosexuality can be liberated from the negative connotations which have been distorted since the eighteenth century. History has not been a friend of morals. But then this is a new era and we should be able to deal with, theoretically with the morals of the spirit. It is reasonable to do so. It is ethically correct.

Homosexuality does not threaten families although it may go against their belief system. The spirit of homosexuals is no threat to families. Same-sex marriage is no threat to families. Neither are they a threat to religion. Government does not tell religion that they have to marry anyone in particular. Government leaves it up to the religion to marry who ever they want. A church need not marry any same-sex couple but same-sex couples should have the right to marriage through the government; city hall. It would be the moral thing to do recognising homosexual's as spiritual individuals that fit into the community.

 

[blackout]

"morality" has nothing to do with sex itself.

For me every "moral" issue boils down to one thing,
and that is the idea that every person has a right to freedom of individuality,
as LONG AS their own chosen "individuality"
does not infringe on anyone else's right to freedom of individuality.

Cases of lying about sex with your partners,
giving them a false impression of their life,
or rape, or abuse,
taking sexual advantage of someone who is young, or impaired...
this is an infringement on SOMEONE ELSE'S freedom of indiviuality.

But it is not a sexual issue. It is a matter of inter-relational infringement.

 

[Magic Man]

Okay, well let's assume the wife is in a coma and probably would never know. The man confesses everything to his comatose wife but there's no chance she'll recover. Now there's no chance that his cheating will harm his wife. Would you say that now he's not doing anything immoral?

Would you really consider that cheating?

 

[Magic Man]

Or take crime: low crime rates can be accomplished by imposing the death penalty for every infraction.

Not really. For one, if you don't enforce the law very well, it doesn't matter what the penalty is. for another, I don't think this penalty would lower crime rates immensely.

No moral code is objectively provable, because we possess no test which will show the superiority of one code without assuming a priori things which make the test useless.

That's an interesing opinion, just a bit inaccurate, though.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, let's take a case of a man cheating on his wife. Assuming his wife doesn't find out, and assuming that the marriage is livable, should we say that, since there was no harm done, the cheater hasn't done anything immoral?

I would disagree that no harm was done. He has harmed himself by injecting dishonesty and reducing true intimacy in his most important relationship. Also, any "no-harm"argument based on lying fails for me; honesty is at the core of morality. Finally, my guess is that he's treating his wife in a manner he would not want to be treated; he has slanted the relationship by granting himself something he does not want her to do. There's a reason we call it cheating, and just because you don't get caught doesn't mean it's not cheating, Governor Sanderson.

 

[Caladan]

We are better off with leaving sexuality out of accusations of flawed morality. as we all got our kinks. and you can be sure that as much as you condemn someone else's sexual orientation or sexual experiences, if there would be a camera following you 24/7 your kinks will be revealed to all.. and again, we all got our kinks.