The Consent Argument

[Samael_Khan]

Hypothetically, if pink elephants in my garage said I should kill my husband, would that be right?
I do not give a rip what the Old Testament says "God did" and I do not need to defend it as it is not associated with my religion.

I consider the pink elephant as the equivalent of your God.

I never said that STDs are the reason that sex outside of marriage etc is wrong, I only said that is one thing that can result from sex outside marriage. I believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong because it runs contrary to God's Law, but that is just my belief and I am not foisting it upon anyone else or expecting anyone else to adhere to it.

Ok. Cool.

As a believer I would consider that pretty important reason, although I would not exactly call it alienation from God, but rather it is going against God's laws which can lead to alienation, but that is just according to my religion and it is my belief, to which I have just as much of a right as you have to your beliefs.

Yes, sex outside of marriage would be against Gods laws which causes an alienation from God. And I never said that you do not have the right to believe whatever you wish. Is this conversation upsetting you?

I said it before and I am saying it again. I consider sex outside of marriage to be immoral just because God says so and I believe there are other valid reasons to consider it immoral, because it is harmful to individuals and thus harmful to society. In a nutshell, I believe it is harmful to individuals because it is harmful to the soul. I believe it is harmful to society for the following reason:

“The Bahá’í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá’í law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.” The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 223

“The proper use of the sex instinct is the natural right of every individual, and it is precisely for this very purpose that the institution of marriage has been established. The Bahá'ís do not believe in the suppression of the sex impulse but in its regulation and control.” Lights of Guidance (second part): A Bahá'í Reference File, pp. 364-365

Those quotes aren't actually giving reasons as to how it is harmful to society. The first quote says that the family is the bedrock of the human society but doesn't explain how it does that. That is just an assertion and not a reason. The second point says that the proper use of the sex instinct is the natural right of every individual, but doesn't explain why this is a right and why sex outside of marriage is not a right. I also do see how regulation and control fall into the equation, since one can regulate and control themselves with sex outside of marriage.

These quotes sound very flowery and impress but they don't have any substance to them upon close examination. Do you even understand what they mean?

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, I understand that is the belief. But if what is best for humans isn't determined by God, but just known by God, that means it is possible for humans to know and understand without God's intervention.

If God created humans with a purpose in mind (which would be the purpose of their existence) then God would know what is best for humans, and if God is All-Knowing and All-Wise (whereas no humans possess those qualities), then what is best for humans would have to be determined by God.

I do not believe it is possible for humans to know and understand what is best for them without God's intervention. How could they know if they do not even know the purpose for which they were created?

That is why a democratic system of governance is to be desired. That way everyone gets a say in how things happen.

I fully agree that is how things should be decided.

Even if there was a reason for our creation, what relevance is that to what is best for us *now*? And, shouldn't *we* get to determine what is best for us?

Logically speaking, if there was a reason for which we were created that would not change over time. I do not believe that *we* could ever know what is best for us without a revelation from God which contains teachings and laws. How could we ever know *what is best for us* if we do not even know the purpose for which we were created?

I don't think theists have any more understanding of what is best for humans than atheists. All they have is what they believe is the opinions of some deity.

If there is no deity then you would be right, but is there is a deity that is All-Knowing and All-Wise that is an game changer, because the deity's opinions would matter more than any human opinions. That is only logical since no human can be All-Knowing or All-Wise.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I could do that and show their benefits but I am not the one who decides what is beneficial according to any personal opinions or criteria I might have.

Oh well.

Atheists are not going to see sex outside of marriage or certain other sexual behaviors as wrong because they do not believe in God so they do not see the importance of following God's laws.

You don't see the importance of God's laws either. Otherwise you could explain them independent of saying "because God says so" and you could actually deal comfortably with the arguments presented.

Regarding the vital importance of the law, this is the Baha'i belief:

“The beginning of all things is the knowledge of God, and the end of all things is strict observance of whatsoever hath been sent down from the empyrean of the Divine Will that pervadeth all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 5

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-2.html I created a drawing the other day. Knowledge of God wasn't involved at all. I finished it without observing his laws either. Same thing happened with the cake my mom made too.

"Sex is not love and love is not sex, nor is there any necessary relationship between the two. In human beings it is true that sex typically plays a bonding role in a certain type of loving relationship, but it's not necessary to it (however much people think it is). We love lots of people who we would (unless something is wrong with us) never consider having sex with: children, parents, close friends, etc. One might even add household pets to the list.

Problem here. There are different types of love. With regards to the importance of sex in a relationship, that is an expression of romantic love. It isn't necessary but it is important. In fact, in the Abrahamic religions, sex is so important to a relationship that they even suggest that one shouldn't withhold sex from their mate. This argument is the equivalent of saying that mothers nursing their children in their arms isn't the love between mother and child. Woman usually do not nurse their parents or close friends. Its a stupid starting point.

Sex is primarily about reproduction. That's why it even exists in the first place. It's a biological mechanism that increases diversity in the gene pool, for one thing. Its role in relationships in some species is a secondary role, not the primary one, which evolved much later. Sex is not something only cute furry creatures do for bonding. Reptiles and amphibians and insects and even plants have sex lives. It evolved as a means of reproduction, and only later acquired secondary roles. Those who want to divorce it completely from its primary role (and they do exist; I've been in discussions where people have argued quite strenuously that sex isn't about reproduction at all!) are in a very real sense attempting to force it to conform to their own selfish desires . . . and that, ultimately, is what is against our spiritual nature.

If reproduction was simply meant for reproduction then people wouldn't be doing it for other reasons. Gay people wouldn't then be attracted to their same sex. They pretty much prove this argument wrong because gay people are not sexually attracted to those they can reproduce with.

Our spiritual nature cannot be developed except by "dying to self" and "living in God." God has given us a dual nature: one material and one spiritual. Sex is part of the material nature, however much it may be able to play a role in a truly loving relationship. It is not what we are, even though people insist that it is. (Extreme but real example: I read an article in the long ago when the AIDS epidemic had become the big news of the day in which the author, a promiscuous homosexual who had contracted the disease, wrote about how it had affected his life. He stated near the end that he had to take a lot of precautions now to avoid spreading the illness, but that he couldn't give up his promiscuous lifestyle because that was "who he was.")

Actually you are your personality. Your sexual orientation is a part of who you are. That example provided is the example of an irresponsible idiot who doesn't care about others. He is basically an addict, which is a whole other problem.

God is calling us to struggle against our lower nature and to become who we truly are: not material beings, not sexual beings, but spiritual beings who are in control of the physical side of our nature and who can thus find true happiness living in conformity with His will. Although not scriptural, there is a possible explanation of why He has made it so hard that I ran across long ago in a Baha'i children's book: Because if it were too easy, it wouldn't be worth anything. Or put another way, because only by being challenged can we really prove our love for God."

If we have both a material and spiritual nature then we are DEFINITELY both spiritual and material beings. Unless one doesn't believe that we have physical bodies of course.

 

[Polymath257]

If God created humans with a purpose in mind (which would be the purpose of their existence) then God would know what is best for humans, and if God is All-Knowing and All-Wise (whereas no humans possess those qualities), then what is best for humans would have to be determined by God.

If there is such a thing as 'best for humans', and if that is something knowable at all. And no, that would NOT have to be determined by God. It would be *possible*, but it would still, ultimately, be determined by human well-being.

I do not believe it is possible for humans to know and understand what is best for them without God's intervention. How could they know if they do not even know the purpose for which they were created?

Again, assuming there is a purpose at all. And that it is relevant. Why would the purpose be what's best? Maybe there is no single purpose. Maybe it is up to us to determine.

I fully agree that is how things should be decided.

Logically speaking, if there was a reason for which we were created that would not change over time. I do not believe that *we* could ever know what is best for us without a revelation from God which contains teachings and laws. How could we ever know *what is best for us* if we do not even know the purpose for which we were created?

I would consider whatever purpose to be irrelevant. If that purpose makes us unhappy or unhealthy, for example, the purpose may not be what is best. The goal of a creator does not have to align with what is best for the created.

If there is no deity then you would be right, but is there is a deity that is All-Knowing and All-Wise that is an game changer, because the deity's opinions would matter more than any human opinions. That is only logical since no human can be All-Knowing or All-Wise.

I disagree. That deity's opinions would be just that: opinions. No matter how wise or knowledgeable, it isn't someone else's decision to determine what is right for people. It is for those who are affected to decide. The *recommendation* of the deity (provided the opinion can be determined) might be one to seriously consider. But it would NOT be the ultimate determiner of what is moral or good.

 

[Trailblazer]

I consider the pink elephant as the equivalent of your God.

That's fine, but in that case there is no way you will ever understand my position, the way I think and feel about God and His laws.

Yes, sex outside of marriage would be against Gods laws which causes an alienation from God. And I never said that you do not have the right to believe whatever you wish. Is this conversation upsetting you?

No, it is not upsetting although it is somewhat tedious.

Those quotes aren't actually giving reasons as to how it is harmful to society. The first quote says that the family is the bedrock of the human society but doesn't explain how it does that. That is just an assertion and not a reason. The second point says that the proper use of the sex instinct is the natural right of every individual, but doesn't explain why this is a right and why sex outside of marriage is not a right. I also do see how regulation and control fall into the equation, since one can regulate and control themselves with sex outside of marriage.

Obviously, this conversation is not going to be fruitful, which is why I tried to opt out of this thread days ago. It is your *right* to do anything you want to do and you can do whatever you want to because you have free will. Likewise, it is my *right* to ignore the mask mandate and go into grocery stores breathing and sneezing on other people, and I could do that unless there is a mandate prohibiting it. I might rather go shopping mask-less but it is not good for other people so there is a mask mandate. Moreover, it would be selfish for me to only think of what I want and not think about what is good for society. I believe that sex outside of marriage is not good for society because it threatens the divine institution of marriage and family. If people can live together and have sex without getting married, why would they be motivated to marry and have children? This is just logic.

“The proper use of the sex instinct is the natural right of every individual, and it is precisely for this very purpose that the institution of marriage has been established. The Bahá'ís do not believe in the suppression of the sex impulse but in its regulation and control.” Lights of Guidance (second part): A Bahá'í Reference File, pp. 364-365

Regulation and control of what? Our animal instincts. Sure, one can regulate and control themselves (or fail to do so) in or outside of marriage, so what it boils down to is that this is God's law and it exists for the reason Baha'u'llah stated:

“The Bahá’í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá’í law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.” The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 223

If sex is permitted outside of marriage then people end up having sex outside of a committed relationship, and have sex just for physical pleasure, then there would be no need for the commitment that comes with marriage and no need to raise a family. I already explained how I believe we are spiritual beings, not sexual beings, so there is no need to repeat that.

These quotes sound very flowery and impress but they don't have any substance to them upon close examination. Do you even understand what they mean?

Of course I understand what they mean, I understand exactly what they mean, and they are very clear and easy to understand, unlike anything we find in the Bible.

 

[Trailblazer]

You don't see the importance of God's laws either. Otherwise you could explain them independent of saying "because God says so" and you could actually deal comfortably with the arguments presented.

I do see the importance and I already explained that more than once so I see no reason to repeat myself.

I created a drawing the other day. Knowledge of God wasn't involved at all. I finished it without observing his laws either. Same thing happened with the cake my mom made too.

As I said before, you are free to believe and do whatever you want to, because you have free will. The same applies to me.

Problem here. There are different types of love. With regards to the importance of sex in a relationship, that is an expression of romantic love. It isn't necessary but it is important.

That is true for most people when they are young or middle-aged, but often when people get older sex becomes less important or not important at all.

If reproduction was simply meant for reproduction then people wouldn't be doing it for other reasons. Gay people wouldn't then be attracted to their same sex. They pretty much prove this argument wrong because gay people are not sexually attracted to those they can reproduce with.

Just because people have physical attraction and desires that does not mean that was the purpose for which we were created, but I see no reason to cover ground I have already covered.

Actually you are your personality. Your sexual orientation is a part of who you are. That example provided is the example of an irresponsible idiot who doesn't care about others. He is basically an addict, which is a whole other problem.

I am my personality because my soul is my personality, and I am a woman because that is my gender, but that has absolutely nothing to do with my sexual orientation, because I do not need sex in order to fulfill the purpose of my existence.

If we have both a material and spiritual nature then we are DEFINITELY both spiritual and material beings. Unless one doesn't believe that we have physical bodies of course.

That's true, but I believe that spiritual nature supersedes the physical nature. I was not always this way though. There was a time when I thought sex was so important that I had to join SA! That was after I got married because I never had sex before that. I thought that I could do whatever I wanted to sex-wise since it was not against Baha'i laws within marriage, but my attachment to sex led me away from God for many years. Mind you, this was before what I read what Baha'u'llah wrote about self and passion and worldly desires; after that I was never able to relate to sex the same way. Maybe it is a good thing I waited a few years to read that.

For everything there is a season, but thank God that season is over and I have moved on to the next season of my life.

 

[Trailblazer]

If there is such a thing as 'best for humans', and if that is something knowable at all. And no, that would NOT have to be determined by God. It would be *possible*, but it would still, ultimately, be determined by human well-being.

But who determines what is best for human well-being? Why would humans determine what is best for their well-being and how could they know?

Again, assuming there is a purpose at all. And that it is relevant. Why would the purpose be what's best? Maybe there is no single purpose. Maybe it is up to us to determine.
You can conjecture till the cows come home, but if God created humans then God would know the purpose for which they were created for, logically speaking. If a car manufacturer makes a car they know they are making it for the purpose of transportation, and if a builder builds a house he is building it for someone to live in.

I would consider whatever purpose to be irrelevant. If that purpose makes us unhappy or unhealthy, for example, the purpose may not be what is best. The goal of a creator does not have to align with what is best for the created.

Logically speaking, the goal of a creator would have to align with what is best for the created, if that creator is benevolent... It might not be what makes some people happy, if their happiness is tied in with worldly desires, but then we have to ask if attachment to the material world and physical enjoyments is in the best interest of humans.

I disagree. That deity's opinions would be just that: opinions. No matter how wise or knowledgeable, it isn't someone else's decision to determine what is right for people. It is for those who are affected to decide. The *recommendation* of the deity (provided the opinion can be determined) might be one to seriously consider. But it would NOT be the ultimate determiner of what is moral or good.

Of course, if God created humans God's opinion would be the ultimate determiner of what is moral and good for humans. This is logic 101 stuff. Moreover, it is God's right to set the standards for moral behavior because God created humans, although whether we follow the teachings and laws of God or not is our own decision because we have free will.

 

[Polymath257]

But who determines what is best for human well-being? Why would humans determine what is best for their well-being and how could they know?

because what is best isn't determined by someone else. it is determined by the one who it happens to.

Logically speaking, the goal of a creator would have to align with what is best for the created, if that creator is benevolent... It might not be what makes some people happy, if their happiness is tied in with worldly desires, but then we have to ask if attachment to the material world and physical enjoyments is in the best interest of humans.

Well, if what fulfills them the most are earthly desires, then that is what is best *for them*. Nobody else gets to decide that for them.

[QUUOTE]Of course, if God created humans God's opinion would be the ultimate determiner of what is moral and good for humans. This is logic 101 stuff.[/QUOTE]
Again, I disagree. The goals of a creator might well differ from the goals and best interests of the created. That is logic 101. It is not the role of the designer or creator to determine what is best once things are created. Otherwise, free will has no meaning.

Moreover, it is God's right to set the standards for moral behavior because God created humans, although whether we follow the teachings and laws of God or not is our own decision because we have free will.

And I disagree that there is such a right. Once a conscious being is created, it is the right of that conscious being to decide what is in their own best interests. Any creator that interferes with that is immoral.

 

[nPeace]

I could have sworn I responded to this already, but it appears not. Apologies on delay.

No problem.

You were representing the argument of 'other people' though. Not your argument, I believe. And in doing so, you need to be very careful to articulate their argument in a fair manner. Or simply ask them to articulate it.
Articulating it poorly, or unfairly, and then arguing against that point of view is the very definition of a strawman. Your conclusion was thus stated;

Conclusion
Considering all these factors... the conclusion is, the consent argument, is a subjective opinion which is presented as a reasonable and sensible 19th century intelligent understanding. However the facts show different.
It is simply an argument made to excuse one's choice of conduct, and is built on the lie that no one is hurt, and that whatever one chooses to accept is right.
One certainly has the right to choose, but that does not mean their choice is right.

But no-one (or at least, almost no-one) is arguing that 'whatever one chooses to accept is right'. And no-one is suggesting that 'consent' is unfettered.

"Almost no one" may be correct to some people, including yourself, but I don't believe you can vouch for that being factual.
I won't be able to go through this forum and pull out all those quotes where more than a "handful" of persons said the exact words. Perhaps they should have been more articulate.
However, I think the context of the OP shows it is in relation to sexual activity.
If someone brings in other scenarios, and I let them know what the focus is, I think a reasonable person would accept that, and adjust to it, or just leave, if they don't want to discuss that.

Burden of proof? What now?
I'm still trying to work out what your point is. I assume, based on rereading a couple of times, that your point is that unfettered consent doesn't constitute moral righteousness. Fine, I agree. Where are we now?

If you are trying to work out what my point is, how can you call it a strawman, and say, "It will be a very small percentage of the population who would take that position"?

So are you saying you now understand the point of the OP, and you agree?
Where are we now?
No contention. If you are not contending, you can contend with the contenders.

Simply put, legality and morality are entirely different spheres. Sometimes one informs the other.

Okay, but, what if someone believes that something is morally right to them, because it is their right, or they can legally consent to it... Is it morally right?

I would hope so, given that you were the author. However, that doesn't mean it's necessarily clear to others.

I won't ignore you, if it's not clear. I'll make it clear. If you persist in making an issue about it not being clear to you, I'll just allow you to come to that understanding on your own. If you follow the OP, it should eventually become clear. If it doesn't...

I think you're suggesting that unfettered consent doesn't constitute moral righteousness. I'm not exactly sure who ever suggested it did, but whatevs. You also seem to be hinting that there is an objective morality, and that determines what is moral. If that is your position, easier to just say that. It really doesn't matter at that point what others state or ask, since you'd be answering to a higher power, and not listening to us.
If you have doubts about objective morality, then sure...it all makes more sense to me.

You agreed, without actual facts, that a percentage of persons may suggest it.
Some of that small percentage can be here, can't they? Evidently they are.

If you are saying that you don't agree with debating any position, I have to wonder... can I ask, why are you on a religious debate forum, where you have your beliefs, and views, and others have theirs?

 

[nPeace]

He had his followers torture others: ever hear of the case where they had their opponents get circumcised before killing them under false pretenses?

God did that? God told them to do that?
No. Nowhere does the Bible say God told the individuals to do that. Nor did God approve.
When it became known what those individuals did, they were cursed, not blessed.
Was that a desperate attempt to cherry pick verses that might support a false claim? It failed miserably.
God never tortured anyone. Nor commanded it.

Two points:
1. An embryo is not a baby.
2. A woman gets to remove anyone who is residing inside of her.

1. No sane person would say an embryo is a baby. Uneducated or ignorant perhaps, if sane. So #1 crumbles to powder as the point is a strawman.
An embryo is a life, at a stage of development.

An embryo is the early stage of development of a multicellular organism. In general, in organisms that reproduce sexually, embryonic development is the part of the life cycle that begins just after fertilization and continues through the formation of body structures, such as tissues and organs.
A newly developing human is typically referred to as an embryo until the ninth week after conception, when it is then referred to as a fetus.

Some grant that the human embryo is a human organism, but deny that this means it is a being deserving of full moral respect. They claim that in order to have dignity and a right to life, a human being must have additional characteristics such as self-awareness. Often this view is expressed along the following lines: “[w]hile human embryos are human organisms, they are not persons, and it is persons who deserve full moral respect, not necessarily human organisms”.

I agree with this paper, that such a view is "profoundly mistaken". Even worst, it is one of the most disgusting, and grossly immoral reasoning I have ever heard. I get sick hearing these views, but fortunately I haven't eaten yet.
So by this reasoning, "pulling the plug" on someone in a coma is morally right, since the person has no self-awareness.

Aside from the fact that you couldn't care less, as you believe it's your right to decide what's morally right, based on your beliefs, what happens when the majority of persons disagree with your "morals" on massacring countless innocent lives?

The unborn is a human being: What science tells us about unborn children

Spoiler: Science and morality

If the basic scientific facts pertaining to the nature of the unborn are straightforward, why do so many people claim that "no one knows when life begins" or that a human embryo isn't human? The biggest reason is that science is conflated with morality, philosophy, or religion.
When someone says that the unborn is not yet "human" or "alive," he is often using those terms in a non-scientific way. He doesn't mean that the unborn isn't biologically human or alive. He means that the unborn isn't valuable or doesn't have human rights. He means that the unborn doesn't yet have the characteristics (e.g., "viability," self-awareness, an infant-like appearance) he thinks would make her "human" or "alive" in this philosophical sense.

To me those are low "morals", if one can even call them morals.

What do you think about this?
(Deuteronomy 25:11, 12) 11 “If two men get into a fight with each other and the wife of the one intervenes to protect her husband from the one striking him and she reaches out her hand and grabs hold of him by his private parts, 12 you must amputate her hand. You should not feel sorry.
Immoral? She did cause harm.

2. In your view - according to your "morals", a woman has the right to destroy life, that depends on her life support.
So to you, it is okay to try to reason from an unscientific, nonfactual, position, in support of slaughtering innocent lives - young ones, reasoning on the basis that a person can take a life so long as it is on their life support.
So one can reason that they have the right to kill a suckling child, because it is theirs and depends on their support, right?
Yet, you think it's immoral for a life giver to destroy lives that are genetically unclean, degenerate, and immoral in nature. Genetic influences on behaviour are pervasive - It is clear from multiple lines of evidence that all researched behavioural traits and disorders are influenced by genes; that is, they are heritable.
Do you disagree?

I did. And the idea that infants can not be innocent is horrific to me.

How much more so, a fetus. So what makes an infant innocent? Is it not based on what the person judging the situation views to be moral?
Here you are, by your own "morals" judging the life of the unborn as a worthless piece of filth, fit to be sucked out out in the most barbaric way - torn to bits, piece by piece, and thrown in the trash, and you are accusing someone to be immoral, who judging from their morals - far higher than yours, clearly, who sees both the situation and the individuals involved as not innocent, but badly tainted with a number of influential defects.

It's quite easy for me to see who the moral person is.

The animals were not 'contaminated'...they are simply animals. To 'put them down because of the wrong-doing of the humans is cruel.

Provide the proof of that, and I will consider it.

??

You asked me to show such a genetic effect.
I asked you to show LUCA.
What's puzzling you?

See above.

Again, this is based on the fact that the murderer harmed someone. The king would NOT have the right to put someone to death that did not harm anyone.

Based on your "morals", you cannot demand that the king's morals be yours.
To do so, would be to imply that your "morals" are universal. Clearly they are not.
However, if God exists - which evidently is so - then you are the one whose "morals" need adjusting.
Morality is not determined, based on harm done.

The things in the Bible that show Jehovah to be a moral monster.

Like none you can even find. You just refer to him that way since your standards fall way below his, and you prefer yours.

Exactly what I said: compassion and caring. There is no difference in a 'heathen perspective'. it is still love, compassion, and caring.

Heathens' love is no different to their "morals" - very inconsistent and undefined.

Then what *is* immorality? if it is simply agreement with some deity, then I have no interest in it. I *am* interested in how people harm other people. That is the behavior that needs to be dealt with.

Yes, that is a behavior that every study shows needs to be addresses. The article I linked is just one of thousands that shows that harm is being done in areas you are ignoring... which to me, doesn't really reconcile with your statement, that you are interested in it.

And a quite common opinion. It is one of the reasons people are rejecting the Bible: it doesn't address the real issues. Instead, it sets up a false morality based on pleasing some deity.

If that were true, you should be able to pull up one article showing that it's the most common view. You can't.
No. That's one of the excuses people use to reject the Bible - claiming that God does not care. Yet the majority of people, including the non-practicing religious, says they know God cares.

Please give the post number. I must have missed it.

You didn't miss the post. You saw it. You cherry picked parts of it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

"Almost no one" may be correct to some people, including yourself, but I don't believe you can vouch for that being factual.

Ok. I can run a poll if you like. My hypothesis is that almost no-one would agree that consent without restriction is the sole arbiter of something being right. If a 12 year old consents to sex with a 20 year old, very few people are going to see that as fine.
I'd go as far as saying 'no-one', but considering that around 2% of Americans believe the Earth is literally flat (with the number trending upwards) I've given up assuming 'all' is applicable to ANY question.
I certainly wouldn't see it as fine.

I won't be able to go through this forum and pull out all those quotes where more than a "handful" of persons said the exact words. Perhaps they should have been more articulate.

The notion of consent as being central to legal rights is both widespread and common. As a simple example, the answer to 'Should gay people be able to have sex legally?' would commonly be 'As long as it's consensual'.
The unspoken part is that this doesn't apply if one of those gay people is 12, and the other 20. I don't think that shows a lack of articulation, but perhaps you are talking about some other thing.

However, I think the context of the OP shows it is in relation to sexual activity.
If someone brings in other scenarios, and I let them know what the focus is, I think a reasonable person would accept that, and adjust to it, or just leave, if they don't want to discuss that.

Okay. Let's stick to sex then.

If you are trying to work out what my point is, how can you call it a strawman, and say, "It will be a very small percentage of the population who would take that position"?

Because I believe I understood your point and position (and articulated this twice in my last post) but was asking for confirmation I hadn't misunderstood.

So are you saying you now understand the point of the OP, and you agree?
Where are we now?
No contention. If you are not contending, you can contend with the contenders.

I don't know. If your point is that consent doesn't mean something is necessarily 'right' or 'legal', then we agree.
I believe that is not your only point, though, so perhaps we only agree to a certain level.

Okay, but, what if someone believes that something is morally right to them, because it is their right, or they can legally consent to it... Is it morally right?

'Morally right' is a tough thing for me to respond to, since the way you think about morality...and more importantly, the way you think about subjective morality...is different to how I do.
I'll try to spell out my thoughts, but this will be somewhat of a challenge for us to avoid talking past each other, I think. Let's see. I'll need to make a couple of assumptions about your beliefs. Just correct me if I'm wrong, but it gets too hard to give clear examples if I don't assume anything.

Both of us (ie. you and me) have a moral code that we live by. I'll assume we both try hard to live by our moral code, regardless of whether that is the 'easy' path or not. You would see your morals as objective (ie. there is a single set of 'correct' morals) whereas I see morality as subjective. Whilst that sounds like a big difference (and is, in some ways) it's not very impactful on the day to day.

For example;
You believe murder is wrong. I believe murder is wrong.
You believe theft is wrong. I believe theft is wrong.
You believe cheating on a spouse is wrong. I believe cheating on a spouse is wrong.

Looking from the viewpoint of objective morality, there is one set of right behaviours. So from that viewpoint, anyone following subjective morality is basically always going to be 'more wrong' than someone following objective morality, it's purely a matter of to what degree. (I'm assuming people here actually follow the moral code they profess to live by...obviously some don't).
Looking from the viewpoint of subjective morality, each person's code of moral behaviour may be different, and what is moral changes over time. So, I would see your version of morality (religiously inspired or otherwise) as subjective. I would also see my version of morality as subjective.

The important thing to note here is that my belief in subjective morality doesn't change the fact that there are things I think are right and wrong. It doesn't mean all moral codes are equal, or that morality is unimportant. It is simply a recognition that my moral beliefs and someone else's will differ to some degree, and that neither of these sets of beliefs are perfect or timeless.

So...let's say for the sake of argument that someone else believes murder is okay where a wife has cheated on a husband. They may very well be adhering quite strictly to their moral code. This might even be a religious belief, and something passed down generation on generation. I can understand that as being part of their subjective morality AND argue that it's heinous and wrong.

A believer in objective morality (in a holistic sense) would instead be judging whether this falls within or without the 'perfect' moral code we should all adhere to.

If that believer in objective morality decides that this is heinous, then I've found an ally, regardless of whether we used the same thought process to reach the conclusion. If they decide it's justified, I have an adversary.

TLDR : People can make their own calls on what is 'morally right'. That is simple fact. I have made mine, and there are behaviours I would see as 'right' and others I would see as 'not right'. But this is my judgement and responsiblity, and it behooves me to refine and develop my moral code as I learn and live, and the world changes.

I won't ignore you, if it's not clear. I'll make it clear. If you persist in making an issue about it not being clear to you, I'll just allow you to come to that understanding on your own. If you follow the OP, it should eventually become clear. If it doesn't...

You agreed, without actual facts, that a percentage of persons may suggest it.
Some of that small percentage can be here, can't they? Evidently they are.

They could be. But I've been here a while, and on this planet for a while, too. Your OP sounded like an argument against subjective morality, using a strawman as an example.
If it's not an argument against subjective morality, and you're instead aiming it at the very small number of people who MAY be here who think that consent is the end of the story in terms of what is 'right', then fair enough. That would be an unusual OP.

If you are saying that you don't agree with debating any position, I have to wonder... can I ask, why are you on a religious debate forum, where you have your beliefs, and views, and others have theirs?

I'm happy to debate anything, and am here to learn and occasionally teach. I came here initially to learn more about deism, and stayed for the lulz.

Sidenote for any casual readers : I'm aware that a belief in objective morality can be more nuanced than believing there is a single set of objective morals. It can, for example, include underpinning objective morality (perhaps around things like murder) which are then enhanced or built on with subjective morality. That's not how I think, and I'm using a more simplistic black/white position in this post.

 

[Samael_Khan]

That's fine, but in that case there is no way you will ever understand my position, the way I think and feel about God and His laws.

I consider this obviously wrong since I was a staunch theist, which means I can relate very well to why people believe in God and his laws.

Obviously, this conversation is not going to be fruitful, which is why I tried to opt out of this thread days ago. It is your *right* to do anything you want to do and you can do whatever you want to because you have free will. Likewise, it is my *right* to ignore the mask mandate and go into grocery stores breathing and sneezing on other people, and I could do that unless there is a mandate prohibiting it. I might rather go shopping mask-less but it is not good for other people so there is a mask mandate. Moreover, it would be selfish for me to only think of what I want and not think about what is good for society. I believe that sex outside of marriage is not good for society because it threatens the divine institution of marriage and family. If people can live together and have sex without getting married, why would they be motivated to marry and have children? This is just logic.

“The proper use of the sex instinct is the natural right of every individual, and it is precisely for this very purpose that the institution of marriage has been established. The Bahá'ís do not believe in the suppression of the sex impulse but in its regulation and control.” Lights of Guidance (second part): A Bahá'í Reference File, pp. 364-365

Regulation and control of what? Our animal instincts. Sure, one can regulate and control themselves (or fail to do so) in or outside of marriage, so what it boils down to is that this is God's law and it exists for the reason Baha'u'llah stated:

“The Bahá’í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá’í law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.” The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 223

If sex is permitted outside of marriage then people end up having sex outside of a committed relationship, and have sex just for physical pleasure, then there would be no need for the commitment that comes with marriage and no need to raise a family. I already explained how I believe we are spiritual beings, not sexual beings, so there is no need to repeat that.

Well, you haven't explained how it is good for society and I fail to see how sex outside of marriage is a result of an animal instinct. Also, you do realise that marriage is just an formal institution so people don't actually have to get married to stay together and raise a family right? Also, married people can get divorced which means that marriage doesn't mean much or ensures anything.

Of course I understand what they mean, I understand exactly what they mean, and they are very clear and easy to understand, unlike anything we find in the Bible.

They are not easy to understand because those quotes don't actually provide any break down of the reasons behind the assertions. Also, many ideas are not easily understood because they are complex. In this way, the new testament is by far superior to what you have quoted since it goes into detailed discussion as to why something is right or wrong to follow. Pauls letter to the Romans does a way better job of explaining his position that your quotes.

 

[Trailblazer]

I consider this obviously wrong since I was a staunch theist, which means I can relate very well to why people believe in God and his laws.

Sorry, I forgot that you were a theist, but you aren't anymore so obviously you disagree with the positions we take on the law.

They are not easy to understand because those quotes don't actually provide any break down of the reasons behind the assertions. Also, many ideas are not easily understood because they are complex. In this way, the new testament is by far superior to what you have quoted since it goes into detailed discussion as to why something is right or wrong to follow. Pauls letter to the Romans does a way better job of explaining his position that your quotes.

I would like to see what Paul says because it is probably similar to what can be found in the and it was addressing a different culture Baha'i Writings. However, since the Bible was written to apply to a different time in human history when the needs of people were different than they are today I would expect that his letters to the Romans would reflect that. The Laws of God are revealed in accordance with the needs of the times in which they were revealed.

“The second part of the Religion of God, which refers to the material world, and which comprises fasting, prayer, forms of worship, marriage and divorce, the abolition of slavery, legal processes, transactions, indemnities for murder, violence, theft and injuries—this part of the Law of God, which refers to material things, is modified and altered in each prophetic cycle in accordance with the necessities of the times.” Some Answered Questions, p. 48

Those quotes I posted were not intended to provide the reasons. What it boils down to is choosing to follow the Laws of God or disobey them because these Laws are for our own protection, they are beneficial for our spiritual development and they protect us from acting on our own selfish desires which is not beneficial to our character. Baha'u'llah explains that throughout His Writings and He explains what the standard is for Baha'is.

“My captivity can bring on Me no shame. Nay, by My life, it conferreth on Me glory. That which can make Me ashamed is the conduct of such of My followers as profess to love Me, yet in fact follow the Evil One. They, indeed, are of the lost.

When the time set for this Revelation was fulfilled, and He Who is the Day Star of the world appeared in ‘Iráq, He bade His followers observe that which would sanctify them from all earthly defilements. Some preferred to follow the desires of a corrupt inclination, while others walked in the way of righteousness and truth, and were rightly guided.

Say: He is not to be numbered with the people of Bahá who followeth his mundane desires, or fixeth his heart on things of the earth. He is My true follower who, if he come to a valley of pure gold, will pass straight through it aloof as a cloud, and will neither turn back, nor pause. Such a man is, assuredly, of Me. From his garment the Concourse on high can inhale the fragrance of sanctity…. And if he met the fairest and most comely of women, he would not feel his heart seduced by the least shadow of desire for her beauty. Such an one, indeed, is the creation of spotless chastity. Thus instructeth you the Pen of the Ancient of Days, as bidden by your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Bountiful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 117-118

Below the Universal House of Justice explained the reasons for the Laws that limit sexual behavior.

1209. One Must Learn to Control Animal Impulses, not be a Slave to Them

"In considering the effect of obedience to the laws on individual lives, one must remember that the purpose of this life is to prepare the soul for the next. Here one must learn to control and direct one's animal impulses, not to be a slave to them. Life in this world is a succession of tests and achievements, of falling short and of making new spiritual advances. Sometimes the course may seem very hard, but one can witness, again and again, that the soul who steadfastly obeys the law of Bahá’u’lláh, however hard it may seem, grows spiritually, while the one who compromises with the law for the sake of his own apparent happiness is seen to have been following a chimera: he does not attain the happiness he sought, he retards his spiritual advance and often brings new problems upon himself."

(From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, excerpts from a letter to all National Spiritual Assemblies, February 6, 1973)

Lights of Guidance/Chastity and Sex Education - Bahaiworks, a library of works about the Bahá’í Faith

 

[SkepticThinker]

But who determines what is best for human well-being? Why would humans determine what is best for their well-being and how could they know?

Who else but humans would be able to best determine what is best for the well-being of human beings?
Some deity that doesn't share our plight with us? No thanks.

Logically speaking, the goal of a creator would have to align with what is best for the created, if that creator is benevolent... It might not be what makes some people happy, if their happiness is tied in with worldly desires, but then we have to ask if attachment to the material world and physical enjoyments is in the best interest of humans.

So how do we know that the creator is benevolent?

Humans reside in the material world so I would suggest that attachment to the material world and it's physical enjoyments is in the best interests of humans. Attachment to reality is usually a good thing.

Of course, if God created humans God's opinion would be the ultimate determiner of what is moral and good for humans. This is logic 101 stuff. Moreover, it is God's right to set the standards for moral behavior because God created humans, although whether we follow the teachings and laws of God or not is our own decision because we have free will.

I suggest you look up the Euthyphro Dilemma. I believe someone already referenced it earlier in the thread.

 

[Trailblazer]

Who else but humans would be able to best determine what is best for the well-being of human beings? Some deity that doesn't share our plight with us? No thanks.

God does share our plight with us as God is omnipresent. Moreover, God is all-knowing so God knows our plight.

So how do we know that the creator is benevolent?

The only way we can know anything about God, from what the Messengers of God reveal in scriptures. [/quote]

Humans reside in the material world so I would suggest that attachment to the material world and it's physical enjoyments is in the best interests of humans. Attachment to reality is usually a good thing.

Enjoyment of them is fine but attachment to them is not in our best interest because they do not last forever.

"Should a man wish to adorn himself with the ornaments of the earth, to wear its apparels, or partake of the benefits it can bestow, no harm can befall him, if he alloweth nothing whatever to intervene between him and God, for God hath ordained every good thing, whether created in the heavens or in the earth, for such of His servants as truly believe in Him. Eat ye, O people, of the good things which God hath allowed you, and deprive not yourselves from His wondrous bounties. Render thanks and praise unto Him, and be of them that are truly thankful." Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 276

 

[SkepticThinker]

God does share our plight with us as God is omnipresent. Moreover, God is all-knowing so God knows our plight.

Well, I don't see him/her anywhere. What I see is a bunch of different people from a bunch of different religions, each with their own ideas about what these gods want. Nothing from any actual god(s) though.

So as far as I am concerned, morality is a human thing, because we're the ones actually exercising it and having to interact with each other on this planet we find ourselves living on.

The only way we can know anything about God, from what the Messengers of God reveal in scriptures.

Scriptures that are written by men who say that this god is benevolent.

But I asked how we know god is benevolent.

Enjoyment of them is fine but attachment to them is not in our best interest because they do not last forever.

"Should a man wish to adorn himself with the ornaments of the earth, to wear its apparels, or partake of the benefits it can bestow, no harm can befall him, if he alloweth nothing whatever to intervene between him and God, for God hath ordained every good thing, whether created in the heavens or in the earth, for such of His servants as truly believe in Him. Eat ye, O people, of the good things which God hath allowed you, and deprive not yourselves from His wondrous bounties. Render thanks and praise unto Him, and be of them that are truly thankful." Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 276

According to humans who wrote that down a long time ago. Other humans say other things about their gods and ancient texts.

So how do we determine who's got it right? Perhaps a careful examination of the consequences of our actions as pertains to the well-being of others. That's what morality is to me. Then we skip following dictates that humans have made on behalf of gods and actually exercise some morality instead.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, I don't see him/her anywhere. What I see is a bunch of different people from a bunch of different religions, each with their own ideas about what these gods want. Nothing from any actual god(s) though.

And you won't ever SEE God, nobody will, because God (the Eternal Essence) never shows up on earth, and there are reasons why:

“Were the Eternal Essence to manifest all that is latent within Him, were He to shine in the plentitude of His glory, none would be found to question His power or repudiate His truth. Nay, all created things would be so dazzled and thunderstruck by the evidences of His light as to be reduced to utter nothingness. How, then, can the godly be differentiated under such circumstances from the froward?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 71-72

So as far as I am concerned, morality is a human thing, because we're the ones actually exercising it and having to interact with each other on this planet we find ourselves living on

That is absolutely correct, morality is a human thing, not a God thing, since God does not have behavior.

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=morality+definition

That is why I call out some atheists say that God is not moral because of some anthropomorphic stories written about things God is purported to have done in the Old Testament.

However, God sets the standards for human morality when He reveals teachings and laws through His Messengers.

Scriptures that are written by men who say that this god is benevolent.

But I asked how we know god is benevolent.

Scriptures are the only was we can know.

According to humans who wrote that down a long time ago. Other humans say other things about their gods and ancient texts.

So how do we determine who's got it right? Perhaps a careful examination of the consequences of our actions as pertains to the well-being of others. That's what morality is to me. Then we skip following dictates that humans have made on behalf of gods and actually exercise some morality instead.

A careful examination of the consequences of our actions as pertains to the well-being of others is very important. How we treat others is very important but individual moral choices we make can also affect others since we are all connected to each other in society.

If we want to determine which religion is right, we have to do a careful independent investigation of truth.

 

[nPeace]

Ok. I can run a poll if you like. My hypothesis is that almost no-one would agree that consent without restriction is the sole arbiter of something being right. If a 12 year old consents to sex with a 20 year old, very few people are going to see that as fine.
I'd go as far as saying 'no-one', but considering that around 2% of Americans believe the Earth is literally flat (with the number trending upwards) I've given up assuming 'all' is applicable to ANY question.
I certainly wouldn't see it as fine.

The notion of consent as being central to legal rights is both widespread and common. As a simple example, the answer to 'Should gay people be able to have sex legally?' would commonly be 'As long as it's consensual'.
The unspoken part is that this doesn't apply if one of those gay people is 12, and the other 20. I don't think that shows a lack of articulation, but perhaps you are talking about some other thing.

I have no fight with what this world decides.

Okay. Let's stick to sex then.

Because I believe I understood your point and position (and articulated this twice in my last post) but was asking for confirmation I hadn't misunderstood.

I don't know. If your point is that consent doesn't mean something is necessarily 'right' or 'legal', then we agree.
I believe that is not your only point, though, so perhaps we only agree to a certain level.

What's my other point, and what led you to that?

'Morally right' is a tough thing for me to respond to, since the way you think about morality...and more importantly, the way you think about subjective morality...is different to how I do.
I'll try to spell out my thoughts, but this will be somewhat of a challenge for us to avoid talking past each other, I think. Let's see. I'll need to make a couple of assumptions about your beliefs. Just correct me if I'm wrong, but it gets too hard to give clear examples if I don't assume anything.

Both of us (ie. you and me) have a moral code that we live by. I'll assume we both try hard to live by our moral code, regardless of whether that is the 'easy' path or not. You would see your morals as objective (ie. there is a single set of 'correct' morals) whereas I see morality as subjective. Whilst that sounds like a big difference (and is, in some ways) it's not very impactful on the day to day.

For example;
You believe murder is wrong. I believe murder is wrong.
You believe theft is wrong. I believe theft is wrong.
You believe cheating on a spouse is wrong. I believe cheating on a spouse is wrong.

We may agree, on those, and yet differ. I don't know
Perhaps you can let me know what you disagree with.
1) Some think murder includes anyone putting a murderer to death. Which would mean, they label both murderers.
I don't consider the one putting the murderer to death, to be a murderer. He executes justice against a serious crime... which carries the death penalty - according to universal morals.
2) Theft to some may be limited to stealing items.
Theft to me, is stealing anything - including time.
3) Cheating on a spouse may be limited to having an affair with another person.
To me, cheating on a spouse means being unfaithful, by flirting with the opposite sex... or other, and viewing porn.

Looking from the viewpoint of objective morality, there is one set of right behaviours. So from that viewpoint, anyone following subjective morality is basically always going to be 'more wrong' than someone following objective morality, it's purely a matter of to what degree. (I'm assuming people here actually follow the moral code they profess to live by...obviously some don't).

Sounds fair. That's a pertinent point, I think.

Looking from the viewpoint of subjective morality, each person's code of moral behaviour may be different, and what is moral changes over time. So, I would see your version of morality (religiously inspired or otherwise) as subjective. I would also see my version of morality as subjective.

Can you give a couple examples of how the morality I live by, is subjective, and changes?

The important thing to note here is that my belief in subjective morality doesn't change the fact that there are things I think are right and wrong. It doesn't mean all moral codes are equal, or that morality is unimportant. It is simply a recognition that my moral beliefs and someone else's will differ to some degree, and that neither of these sets of beliefs are perfect or timeless.

So long as you agree that we are talking about two different kinds of morality - one governed by principle.. the other by personal opinion on what they consider a standard, or principle.
So doesn't that mean, your principles change, and they are not universal?

So...let's say for the sake of argument that someone else believes murder is okay where a wife has cheated on a husband. They may very well be adhering quite strictly to their moral code. This might even be a religious belief, and something passed down generation on generation. I can understand that as being part of their subjective morality AND argue that it's heinous and wrong.

So here one area where the conflict becomes manifest.
If you believe murder include one having the authority to enforce a law, of executing someone according to the principle governing that law, or moral code, the you would view the act as immoral... even though it is not.
It is not subjective, just because you judge it to be so, based on your subjective moral.
Do you see how, subjective morality, based on person opinion, cannot determine what morality is?

Think of it this way....
Say you had the power to make intelligent agents - above robots with AI. How will the agent ever reach the point of knowing what you know?
Of course, they can kill each other, and experiment on the dead, to find out all they can about how they are made, but they can never know all there is to know - which may be vital.

This is why humans cannot direct their own step. (Jeremiah 10:23)
Like any manufactured item, the instruction manual is necessary... bearing in mind, we are not talking about a simple product. (Isaiah 48:17, 18)

A believer in objective morality (in a holistic sense) would instead be judging whether this falls within or without the 'perfect' moral code we should all adhere to.

If that believer in objective morality decides that this is heinous, then I've found an ally, regardless of whether we used the same thought process to reach the conclusion. If they decide it's justified, I have an adversary.

You have an adversary ... well actually, many.

TLDR : People can make their own calls on what is 'morally right'. That is simple fact. I have made mine, and there are behaviours I would see as 'right' and others I would see as 'not right'. But this is my judgement and responsiblity, and it behooves me to refine and develop my moral code as I learn and live, and the world changes.

You live by personal opinions. Correct?
You said earlier, "we both try hard to live by our moral code".
I say, "Correction. I try to live, not by my moral code, but by God's - as outlined in the Bible."
That's the difference. The reason millions of people can be living in every part of the globe, and have the same morals, is because they don't make their own personal moral code. They all live by one universal moral code.

They could be. But I've been here a while, and on this planet for a while, too. Your OP sounded like an argument against subjective morality, using a strawman as an example.
If it's not an argument against subjective morality, and you're instead aiming it at the very small number of people who MAY be here who think that consent is the end of the story in terms of what is 'right', then fair enough. That would be an unusual OP.

It's not a strawman, since it applies to some... obviously.

I'm happy to debate anything, and am here to learn and occasionally teach. I came here initially to learn more about deism, and stayed for the lulz.

Sidenote for any casual readers : I'm aware that a belief in objective morality can be more nuanced than believing there is a single set of objective morals. It can, for example, include underpinning objective morality (perhaps around things like murder) which are then enhanced or built on with subjective morality. That's not how I think, and I'm using a more simplistic black/white position in this post.

I should have asked. To you, what is murder?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I have no fight with what this world decides.

Then our differences are probably academic more than anything, since I have no fight with what occurs in the next life, nor with God's judgements. It's only the judgement and actions of men (and women) that concern me.

What's my other point, and what led you to that?

I'm guessing, so completely admit this could be wrong, but you seem far more interested in objective morality than law, or discussion. I still believe the 'consent argument' you put forth in the OP exists mostly on paper only, and surmise that you are trying to argue against something which doesn't commonly exist as a way of 'proving' your views on morality correct.

We may agree, on those, and yet differ. I don't know
Perhaps you can let me know what you disagree with.
1) Some think murder includes anyone putting a murderer to death. Which would mean, they label both murderers.
I don't consider the one putting the murderer to death, to be a murderer. He executes justice against a serious crime... which carries the death penalty - according to universal morals.

I'd see it as contextual. I'm not completely against the death penalty, for example, although in practical terms I think we're so fallible in our judgements that the risk of putting someone innocent to death is ever present.
I'm also not a complete pacifist, and so self-defence and even potentially war are other examples, depending entirely on context.

2) Theft to some may be limited to stealing items.
Theft to me, is stealing anything - including time.

Well...I'm supposing you are talking morally here, rather than legally.
I'd define 'theft' as being items, but however you want to label it, there are a whole lot of things I'd see as immoral. For example, I'm a father. In simplistic terms, doing things that negatively impact on my girls self-esteem and sense of self-worth could be seen as both 'theft' and 'immoral'. I wouldn't label them as 'theft', but regardless of that I would label them as 'immoral'.

3) Cheating on a spouse may be limited to having an affair with another person.
To me, cheating on a spouse means being unfaithful, by flirting with the opposite sex... or other, and viewing porn.

I guess. For me the morality is more around the promises you make to each other. I chose to get married, as did my wife, and as part of that we took certain vows. Doing anything contrary to those is immoral. The actual vows might change from person to person. It's more an honest and transparent relationship, and keeping promises, to me.

That doesn't just apply to marriage vows, but any time I provide my word, or assurances.

Can you give a couple examples of how the morality I live by, is subjective, and changes?

Nope. Not without knowing you better. I think it's at least possible that someone goes through life (as an adult, let's say) without changing their morality AT ALL. But I wouldn't see that as positive. Still, my point is more around whatever feeds your tradition, and culture.
In simple terms, many religions claim to hold the keys to objective morality. That they are each different doesn't unduly worry some, who believe theirs is the one 'true' example, and dogma.
But taking a historical view of these religions over a long term time period suggests there is change. And religions that don't change do it by a combination of increasingly prescriptive and (to my mind) outdated dogmatic concepts, and simple misinformation.

The religion you have listed against your profile is not one I am overly familiar with, and nor do I know you. But the Amish, for example, have been challenged on water pollution standards, and have varied in their willingness to adjust farming techniques based on these findings. This type of assessment and information is recent, and challenges existing beliefs and practices, regardless that their beliefs are based on 'timeless' laws and morals.

So long as you agree that we are talking about two different kinds of morality - one governed by principle.. the other by personal opinion on what they consider a standard, or principle.
So doesn't that mean, your principles change, and they are not universal?

No, I can't agree to that. All morality is based on principles. I'm trying to think how to communicate my point of view here. Hmmm....
I'll assume you don't follow Islamic moral precepts. Someone who does would most likely argue that these are objectively true morals, and should be held universally. They ARE held by many people (with some level of variety). But to me...and perhaps you...these are not 'objectively true'. They are simply 'more universal' than some other moral beliefs (such as my personal morality).

My principles don't change much, I would say. They may develop a little, or become more refined, but the basics remain. For example, perhaps there is a little more nuance allowed for in 'what is murder'? But the basic tenet that 'murder is wrong' remains. These principles inform my morals, and this can change over time.
Having said that, I don't think my basic moral beliefs have changed much in 20 years. New scenarios appear which I need to try and fit against these moral beliefs. An example was recent discussions here in Australia around marriage equality. My principles informed my position on an issue where I previously didn't hold a position. Does this mean my morals changed? Meh...not sure.

So here one area where the conflict becomes manifest.
If you believe murder include one having the authority to enforce a law, of executing someone according to the principle governing that law, or moral code, the you would view the act as immoral... even though it is not.

I don't believe that, but for the sake of the hypothetical let's pretend I do.

It is not subjective, just because you judge it to be so, based on your subjective moral.
Do you see how, subjective morality, based on person opinion, cannot determine what morality is?

I'd flip that whole point, though. It's not objective, just because you judge it to be so. There are lots of groups who hold to 'objective morality', not based on personal opinion but instead dogma they hold as objectively true. These groups don't all agree on what this 'objective morality' is. Perhaps you believe only one version is true...no doubt the one you hold to, or you wouldn't follow it...but the groups who hold different opinions on this aren't doing so purely out of 'personal opinion'. I get that you might discount my morality as opinionative (in a general sense...not seeing it as personal at all). I am less sure how you discount other groups dogmatic beliefs.

[Cont -]

 

[lewisnotmiller]

[ - cont]

Think of it this way....
Say you had the power to make intelligent agents - above robots with AI. How will the agent ever reach the point of knowing what you know?
Of course, they can kill each other, and experiment on the dead, to find out all they can about how they are made, but they can never know all there is to know - which may be vital.

No humans know all they need to know. That's why allowance for development and change in the principles informing our moral decisions is important. These things shouldn't change like the weather, but neither should they be fixed in the face of learning.

This is why humans cannot direct their own step. (Jeremiah 10:23)
Like any manufactured item, the instruction manual is necessary... bearing in mind, we are not talking about a simple product. (Isaiah 48:17, 18)

My parents, the people around me, and the culture I grew up in instructed me. As an adult, I took personal responsibility for my moral positions on things, and continued to try and develop my understanding of the world, and the principles by which I live.
I now have children (and was previously a teacher), and again try to impart these key principles, whilst giving room for growth and interpretation.

Humans are indeed complex. An 'instruction manual' is horribly insufficient to deal with the nuances of life, particularly in projecting forwards the next 80 years in terms of what my children will need to try and address.

You have an adversary ... well actually, many.

No doubt. Some of my best friends are also 'adversaries' in some senses. There is no way to understand others unless this occurs, I think.

You live by personal opinions. Correct?

Not really. I take personal responsibility for how I live, which is not really the same thing. My morals were heavily informed by my parents, and by those around me, as well as extensive reading and study. That's not to suggest this makes them 'better', but I could no more change what I believe around morality than I could change my beliefs on the existence of God. I can direct what I think about, and what I study, and indirectly this does impact on my beliefs, and my morals to some degree. But they're not simply 'opinionative'. That might sound like I'm splitting hairs to you, I'm not sure. It's an important distinction to me, though.

You said earlier, "we both try hard to live by our moral code".
I say, "Correction. I try to live, not by my moral code, but by God's - as outlined in the Bible."
That's the difference. The reason millions of people can be living in every part of the globe, and have the same morals, is because they don't make their own personal moral code. They all live by one universal moral code.

It's the same thing (to me). There are a couple of distinct points I'd make in relation to this. Hopefully I can make them somewhat succinctly.

1) Assuming the Bible is the holder of objective truth, there is an interpretive quality to the moral code of all Christians.

By that, I mean the subjective interpretation of the Bible leads to different moral beliefs. And has led to different moral beliefs over time. Consider the allowance (or otherwise) of imagery in Byzantium. The acceptance...or otherwise...of polygamy, divorce, female clergy, translated Bibles, personal worship of Jesus, etc, etc. These beliefs all stem from subjective interpretations of the available data. Indeed, consider the books included in the Bible itself.

2) The Bible is a source of morality...this merely makes it a more widely accepted subjective morality. It speaks nothing to it's objectivity.

Is it more 'objective' than Islamic morality? Why? Is it more objective than Jewish morality? Why? Is it more objective than Jainism? Why?
In each case other than the moral beliefs you follow, you'd suggest that a moral belief being documented and widespread is not indicative of it being objectively true, I believe. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that.

It's not a strawman, since it applies to some... obviously.

Whether it's a strawman is entirely contextual, and nothing to do with whether it is 'true'.
For example, were I to say that 'Christians can't even explain the Trinity', and then go on to explain why Christianity is flawed based on this, that would be a strawman. Even though it's quite factual that there are plenty of Christians who struggle to understand or explain the Trinity. Indeed, there are those who don't even believe in it.

I should have asked. To you, what is murder?

It's a legal ruling involving certain sorts of killing which sit outside what is permitted.
It's not a moral ruling.

For example, my grandfather was a soldier, and killed people. He did this 'legally' based on the laws of our land.
Individuals can judge that 'moral' or 'immoral' based on their beliefs...a Jain would surely see it as immoral, for example. But it's not 'murder', as it was legally sanctioned.

For what it's worth, I don't see anything immoral in what he did. War is regrettable, etc, and I am very much non-violent. But to me such things are contextual.