Should condoms be handed out

[Polymath257]

The job of biologists isn't to make value judgments.

Yeah, if you're fine with compromising on your morals. I'm not.

Differing values isn't compromising values. Our value systems differ.

The only reason you believe that is because the text hurts your feelings, not because you have any objective basis for making moral judgments.

Why? Atheists never give a reason why they believe this. According to this "everything's fine as long as it doesn't hurt anyone" reasoning, there's nothing wrong with necrophilia.

Well, we culturally give dead bodies a measure of respect.

Do you believe a person only has moral responsibility towards others, and no responsibility towards themselves? Then self-harm and suicide is fine if no one else gets sad because of it.

Harming others is immoral. Harming yourself is just stupid.

And you believe this because ..?

Because that is a rational basis for morality.

 

[Komori]

Well, we culturally give dead bodies a measure of respect.

That's all you have? Just admit that you're just a cultural Christian and have no rational basis for any of your moral beliefs.

Because that is a rational basis for morality.

Why though? You keep dodging my central question and refusing to justify your belief that health and happiness are inherent moral goods.

 

[Polymath257]

That's all you have? Just admit that you're just a cultural Christian and have no rational basis for any of your moral beliefs.

The rational basis is to promote human well-being. Morality is what makes the jump from 'is' to 'ought'. It is where we state our goals and declare what we consider to be important.

And let me put it this way. If there is a deity and that deity is against human well-being, then I will work against that deity since that deity is evil. And it is good only to the extent that it promotes human well-being.

Why though? You keep dodging my central question and refusing to justify your belief that health and happiness are inherent moral goods.

Because morality is based on human well-being. There is no other rational basis for morality that I can see and it serves to form such a basis. Health and happiness are aspects of that well-being.

 

[Komori]

The rational basis is to promote human well-being. Morality is what makes the jump from 'is' to 'ought'. It is where we state our goals and declare what we consider to be important.

And let me put it this way. If there is a deity and that deity is against human well-being, then I will work against that deity since that deity is evil. And it is good only to the extent that it promotes human well-being.



Because morality is based on human well-being. There is no other rational basis for morality that I can see and it serves to form such a basis. Health and happiness are aspects of that well-being.

And why is human well-being a moral good?

 

[Polymath257]

And why is human well-being a moral good?

Because we are humans and we are the ones trying to figure out our goals.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The job of biologists isn't to make value judgments.

What a goalpost shift claim when you started with criticism of a view which you asserted to be psychologically or biologically imperative. But I get it. Fundmentalists only like science when it reinforces their previously held conception. And will quickly switch from talking about any and all relevant data at the earliest convenience.

Yeah, if you're fine with compromising on your morals. I'm not.

Yes I understand tolerence for other views is not big in the fundamentalist playbook. But, thankfully for us all, your religion doesn't call the shots for the rest of us, and the results of policy which puts tangible helps and harms before baseless virtue ethics means shots are called based on the consequence of the aggregate, not the individual.
And I cannot stress this enough: there is more sti and unwanted pregnancies and teen pregnancies in strict abstinence only areas. Morals which put reducing suffering as their primary objective is making comprehensive sexual education the clear choice. Anything else is just virtue signaling.

The only reason you believe that is because the text hurts your feelings, not because you have any objective basis for making moral judgments.

Kind of like the Poetic Eddas hurt your feelings and that's why you aren't a Wodinist, or the Tao de Ching and that's why you're not a Taoist. If I thought you actually read those, anyway. But virtuist exclusivism being unable to conceptualize any view except their narrow perspective which they incorrectly categorize as 'objective' is why these conversations are so... boring.

So I'll leave it to @Polymath257 who has a great deal more patience than I do.

 

[Jinkx]

Should condoms be handed out? Only if you support protection against unplanned pregnancies and disease ...

 

[Komori]

What a goalpost shift claim when you started with criticism of a view which you asserted to be psychologically or biologically imperative.

I never shifted the goalposts. Don't abuse fallacies.

Fundmentalists only like science when it reinforces their previously held conception.

Not a "fundamentalist" whatsoever, just a social conservative; the two aren't the same thing.

Morals which put reducing suffering as their primary objective is making comprehensive sexual education the clear choice.

What you're talking about is negative utilitarianism. I don't adhere to such an ethical system. It's not taught by Islam, and it's simply ridiculous. The logical conclusion of this line of thinking—that suffering is an inherent moral evil which we should prioritize reducing above all else—is that we should end all life. No life = no suffering.

Anything else is just virtue signaling.

"Oh look at me! I'm so virtuous because I don't virtue signal!"

 

[FooYang]

unplanned pregnancies and disease ...

Precisely why keeping sex for procreation is superior in all cases, period.
Sex is natural and the natural purpose of sex is to have offspring, it's biology, it's science, it's what your sex organ is for, nothing more.

 

[Polymath257]

I never shifted the goalposts. Don't abuse fallacies.

Not a "fundamentalist" whatsoever, just a social conservative; the two aren't the same thing.

What you're talking about is negative utilitarianism. I don't adhere to such an ethical system. It's not taught by Islam, and it's simply ridiculous. The logical conclusion of this line of thinking—that suffering is an inherent moral evil which we should prioritize reducing above all else—is that we should end all life. No life = no suffering.

So instead of saying we should reduce suffering, say we should promote human well-being. That is a positive good we should prioritize over all else.

Let's put it a different way. Any viewpoint that promotes suffering without a balancing improvement of well-being is evil.

"Oh look at me! I'm so virtuous because I don't virtue signal!"

 

[Jinkx]

My ORIGINAL response prior to ALL (except the last four words) being removed from your quote,:

Should condoms be handed out? Only if you support protection against unplanned pregnancies and disease ...

Precisely why keeping sex for procreation is superior in all cases, period.
Sex is natural and the natural purpose of sex is to have offspring, it's biology, it's science, it's what your sex organ is for, nothing more.

No it’s not. IF that is the only value you see in sex, you are free to apply that standard to yourself.

 

[Goodman John]

Precisely why keeping sex for procreation is superior in all cases, period.
Sex is natural and the natural purpose of sex is to have offspring, it's biology, it's science, it's what your sex organ is for, nothing more.

Which (going off on a tangent) may explain the whole 'Eve being made from Adam's rib' thing. We're not missing any bones- we have an even number of ribs. BUT male humans ARE missing a baculum, the p***s bone found in other placental mammals, including chimpanzees and gorillas. Could the 'rib' taken from Adam actually be the baculum, which separates us from the rest of placental mammals?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Hi, new to the thread, and its progressed quite a ways. I hope I'm not derailing any ongoing conversation, but I wanted to respond to the OP.

The Bible teaches against illicit sex, but nowadays sex education in schools makes no distinction between sex within and without marriage

School isn't supposed to. Its about education. The bulk of religious indoctrination (er ... sorry ... religious "education") and teachings of morality belong in the home.

I understand that the reasoning behind handing out condoms is the argument that young people are going to have sex anyway outside of marriage, so why not ensure they are having sex "safely", but is that necessarily true. Is it true that young people would have sex anyway.

Yes. Whee "Abstinence Only" is taught, there is a marked increase in teenaged pregnancy and STDs; or, at the very least, are completely ineffective in preventing adolescent sexual activity.

Abstinence-Only Education Is Ineffective And Unethical, Report Argues

What are your thoughts about handing out condoms?

Adequate sex education is something we owe our young. This includes pregnancy, birth control options, informed consent, various cultural and religious views, sexual diversity, STDs and prevention of the same, legal obligations for unexpected pregnancies etc, and the consequences and rewards of sexual activity.

 

[Cooky]

I think it is a very good idea and that the way religions treat sex is one of the big reasons people are rejecting religion.

If the Bible says that sex outside of marriage is wrong, then, I'm sorry, I think the Bible is evil.

I think condoms are useful when having sex outside of marriage, that way we don't give our pregnant wives diseases. They might get mad if we do.