# Is There a Moral Hierarchy?



## queueball (Jun 16, 2005)

_NOTE: I don't want to start a political or moral thread but, rather, am interested in the groups thoughts on whether one can have a position on a moralistic subject that is trumped by a position on another_.

Over dinner Friday night the issue of abortion came up (this is *NOT* the subject, please read the above note). My stated view is that I am against abortion (with several caveats) but that it is a woman's right to choose. This created somewhat of a fury with one of the other couples at the table (as often happens when the conversation turns to abortion, politics, religion, or great taste vs. less filling). He told me that I must not be against abortion since I would not take the stand that it was wrong. I repeated my position and the ping pong match ensued.

On the ride home my wife and I talked it through and I asked her if she thought I was being wishy-washy on the subject. She stated that she didn't think so but that since she was a woman she couldn't be objective since she too thought the choice belonged to the woman.

I brought it up with another friend of mine before remembering that he is a man of strong faith and freely admits that he is not objective on the subject because he interprets it through a Christian lens.

I would like to hear from some of you. What are your thoughts? Again, I in no way want to discuss/argue abortion, politics or religion. I am interested in the dilemma of seemingly having one moral trump another.


----------



## LabelKing (Sep 3, 2002)

You Kant always get what you want.

*"In truth, I am not altogether wrong to consider dandyism a form of religion."

Charles Baudelaire*


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Moral philosophy is not my area, and I've only just discovered Berlin's writings on Machiavelli. But it seems to me that there is a difference between rules for private conduct and laws appropriate to be passed by a political body.

To use a more familiar example, one can be against the wearing of black lounge suits, and invoke Rules against such a thing without desiring that the laws of our republic be changed to prohibit the practice.

Moving up a notch, don't some theologians argue that the notion of sin coexists with that of free will? In such a scheme, God prefers one course of action without having ordered His universe to prohibit it absolutely. For reasons best known to Himself.

One agnostic's view.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:[C]an have a position on a moralistic subject that is trumped by a position on another.


I would say yes. There are many actions which I consider wrong that I would never want to legislate against. Or legislate only in certain ways. To use the abortion topic to demonstrate (please - this is only an example, keep this topic on topic!): I am strongly pro-life. I would happily outlaw abortion as I consider it murder (probably like your friend). But, I don't believe that the federal government has the ability to pass a law making murder a crime (murder is a state crime, under most circumstances). As a federalist, I also do not believe that the federal government has the authority to restrict the states on this issue.

My religious and political beliefs are somewhat at odds on this, and other, subjects. I think it is reasonable to try and integrate these positions as much as possible, but sometimes one position just has to win over another. In the end, I have to believe that we have been given free will for a reason and try to use mine to the best of my ability. As Concordia intimated, if you can't choose to do evil, you also can't choose to do good. It's the choice that matters.

What a messy world we live in. 

CT


----------



## johnapril (Feb 8, 2006)

"Apparently the reason they didn't release the information right away is they said we had to get the facts right. That's never stopped them in the past."


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

I agree with your position, and understand it completly. I believe that it is in (almost) everyone's best interest to allow obortion, but I think that it is a horrible thing, in any event. 

I don't see a problem with that kind of belief and morality - I think that it is a mature way to address a moral problem.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by queueball_
> 
> I brought it up with another friend of mine before remembering that he is a man of strong faith and freely admits that he is not objective on the subject because he interprets it through a Christian lens.


A Christian 'lens' is no less objective than any other.


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

Weighing the relative importance of competing values is a fundamental part of life, even with issues as mundane as weighing the flavor of a beer against its relative healthfulness. I think moral issues are no different.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

There are just so many shades of grey and differing circumstances around moral issues.

Black and white: It's wrong to steal. Taking anything that isn't yours is wrong. 

Grey: Taking food from an empty store to feed your family after a hurricane is understandable, but taking a plasma tv is still wrong. 

Black and white: Abortion is killing an innocent life.

Grey: A very late term abortion for reasons of convenience or birth control may be wrong, but what about a situation in which a baby would be born with unthinkable and painful deformities? Or a baby conceived through molestation of a 12-year-old?

Something can be deemed "wrong" but under certain situations it could be acceptable to most people.


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by VS_
> There are just so many shades of grey and differing circumstances around moral issues.
> 
> Black and white: It's wrong to steal. Taking anything that isn't yours is wrong.
> ...


Good examples, VS, to show that each of us establishes a moral hierarchy: whether "the highest good" is deemed to be one's own pleasure, the most beneficial to society, God's commandments, or any other measurement -- each as perceived by the one who considers, consciously or not. In a civil, nominally democratic society, we can and do debate the relative merits of the subject at hand (theft, abortion, capital punishment) when we ought first to consider the means of measuring relative good. Were we to agree upon that, we might go a fair distance in repairing the increasing fragmentation of our society.


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by rws_
> In a civil, nominally democratic society, we can and do debate the relative merits of the subject at hand (theft, abortion, capital punishment) when we ought first to consider the means of measuring relative good. Were we to agree upon that, we might go a fair distance in repairing the increasing fragmentation of our society.


How could we ever accomplish that, even with the best of intentions?


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

I hope for consensus, not unanimity, Mr. Homely! Something akin to what the country had before the Vietnamese War, perhaps (in terms of breadth of agreement, not necessarily of matters broadly agreed upon).

I must be desperate to avoid work, I've posted so much today.


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

A person's individual rights should trump any moral opinion of another person or government.

IE, my right to drink trumps your belief that drinking is immoral. My right to property trumps your belief that property should be given away. My right to free speech trumps your belief that blasphemy is a sin.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vladimir Berkov_
> 
> A person's individual rights should trump any moral opinion of another person or government.
> 
> IE, my right to drink trumps your belief that drinking is immoral. My right to property trumps your belief that property should be given away. My right to free speech trumps your belief that blasphemy is a sin.


True, but this positivist view misses the point, does it not? As a shorthand definition, rights are those entitlements that have the force of law; thus, by their very nature rights empower a person in a way that a mere moral conviction does not, as the separation thesis tells us. However, this does not resolve the moral dilemma that q'ball posits: i.e., if moral convictions conflict, how does one resolve the conflict? Appeal to the law will not help much. Take his example. Abortion is currently legal. Many people consider it immoral tout suite; on the other hand, some people consider abortion immoral, but this belief convicts in their minds with a competing moral conviction that a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body. How does one resolve this conflict? Merely asserting that a woman has a legal right to abortion doesn't help much; indeed, this right actually exacerbates the conflict.

"Patriotism is not for those who represent wealth and power. It is good enough for the people" Emma Goldman


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> if moral convictions conflict, how does one resolve the conflict? Appeal to the law will not help much. Take his example. Abortion is currently legal. Many people consider it immoral tout suite; on the other hand, some people consider abortion immoral, but this belief convicts in their minds with a competing moral conviction that a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body. How does one resolve this conflict? Merely asserting that a woman has a legal right to abortion doesn't help much; indeed, this right actually exacerbates the conflict.


I don't think the right exacerbates the conflict because the problem is not that there are conflicting rights but that there is no consensus on the exact definition and extent of a.) the right and b.)the facts. Objectively, you really can't have rights conflicting. Conflicts are a sign of muddled ideology or muddled facts.

For example with abortion, people aren't arguing that there is a general human right to life or a right for a woman to choose a medical procedure, they are arguing about whether a fetus is a human being in the sense that it has a right to life that deserves to be protected and if so to what extent. If a consensus was reached on whether a fetus was a human being with a right to life the abortion question would be decided one way or the other.

The problem is that there are so many questions and issues wrapped up in such a decision (medical, philosophical, political, legal, philosophical, governmental...) and the nation is so divided over them that it is hard to reach a clear consensus. Hence the problem.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I was helping refit an old 95' cutter purchased by the Sea Shepherd Foundation. A journalist from a popular outdoors magazine was doing an interview with Captain Paul Watson. He decided to attack Watson's hypocrisy in using a fossil fuel powered vessel that contributed to global warming. The rather exasperated captain explained calmly he lived in a world that gave little option, sailing vessels capable of matching modern whaling and fishing ships performance being few and far between. It is easy to attack another person with this tactic. If you ever take a debating class all manner of lovely arguements, fair and foul will be demonstrated. You can always use my reply when the journalist asked why ex coasties were aiding an eco terrorist. I threw him overboard[}]


----------



## queueball (Jun 16, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by AlanC_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I did not mean to imply that all Christians would not be objective on this (I rewrote that sentence three time to try to avoid any offense). My friend interprets the issue of abortion as wrong because he believes so strongly in his form of Christianity that he his faith dictates his moralistic view. Not that that's a bad thing, but it does shade his objectivity since he is inherently subjective based on his faith.

Please take that in the spirit which it was meant. No offense intended.


----------



## queueball (Jun 16, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yckmwia, you have nailed my point! How does one resolve the conflict? Alternatively, is it OK to recognize it as a conflict and just live with it?


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

THere are different roles one would play in this debate. One is a direct participant-- either someone who is pregnant or advising someone who is. If you believe that abortion is immoral, that would influence your actions (or advice). As the saying goes "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!"

Then there is the role one would play in setting up a society that will be optimally regulated. You don't like abortion. Is it better to make it illegal (and mete out appropriate penalties to the women, their financial agents, doctors, et al), or put limits on only the most egregious cases and allow women to sort it out in the privacy of their doctors' offices. The first action might solve one problem but create a lot of others. Hence the justification for a lot of "pro-choice" activism.

Where this particular debate has been derailed is that neither side is prepared to give an inch to the other for fear of losing everything. Those who are most interested in the morality of this particular personal act/crime (?) do not recognize the public responsibility of lawmakers not to screw things up for everyone else. Those who are focused on the policy question often appear not to recognize the moral dimension. And so it goes.

FWIW, it seems to me that the framework of Roe v. Wade makes the right compromise between infinite abortion "on demand" on the one side and never any for any reason on the other. If this could somehow be carved into stone, there might be more willingness on each side to engage in discussions about how to have fewer abortions, fewer unwanted pregnancies, and more adoptions when necessary. But not in my lifetime, I fear.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by cufflink44_
> The popular media send people--particularly young people--the message that the only legitimate opinions are the extreme, dogmatic, either-it's-black-or-it's-white ones. Fox and CNN and most of the others bring on talking--make that screaming--heads who are passed off as fair representatives of the different sides of an issue, but are in fact doctrinaire extremists.


Completely! And this has led to some of the ugliest political discourse (if you can call it discourse) I've ever seen.

Opposite sides just do not discuss topics rationally anymore on news/talk programs in the US and this has served to polarize everything even further.

I wouldn't mind running for office, but I certainly wouldn't do so in this climate.


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by cufflink44_
> 
> God forbid someone should actually say, "Hmm. Good point. I hadn't thought about that." Say that and you're a fence-sitter, a wuss, not to be taken seriously. Social discourse equals debate, nothing more, with both sides shouting past each other.


So, so true. What's to be done about this? It seems that people are sometimes afraid of or resistant to moral uncertainty, unwilling to be unresolved or in a state of inquiry about such issues. I'm not sure why that is.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by J. Homely_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, I think it's because being in a state of inquiry is perceived as being weak. If you don't have an opinion or are still gathering infomation, you must therefore be stupid or weak. Silly, I know, but there you are.

It's good to try and resolve moral ambiguity, but there's nothing wrong with admitting its existance in the first place.

CT


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

Moral relativism is moral relativism is moral relativism. At some point a decision must be made to be moral, or not. Whether one steals at the point of a gun, shoplifts, or steals food to feed one's family, it is still theft. Circumstances may dictate considerations in a court of law, but theft is still a crime. When one decides to cross the boundary into immorality, a decision has been made to abide by the consequences, and in many instances those decisions lead to unintended consequences.

If the thief attempts to steal to get food for his/her family, and gets killed for the effort, the thief is still dead. If the thief kills the shopkeeper attempting to steal food to feed his/her family, the thief is then a murderer in addition to being a thief.

A woman who voluntary engages in sexual activity, and gets pregnant has already made the decision to procreate. A life has been started, and it is entitled to live and grow. The woman's decision to have an abortion is solving a perceived problem with an immoral act, the killing of a living being. Terms like "unviable tissue mass" are euphemisms used to assuage the guilt of the participants of the immoral act of murder. A child conceived in an act of love or lust is not an accident. The intentions of individuals playing at procreation have already made their decision, and know the coming result.

Women who become pregnant as the result of rape, have a huge moral quandary. Whatever their decision, they will have to live the rest of their lives with a decision which may very well haunt them. I'm glad I don't have to make the decision. Whatever her decision in that case, it will be between her and her maker.

Moral decisions come down to yes or no. I steal, or I don't. I murder, or I don't. A woman aborts, or she doesn't. There is no other choice. 

Moral decisions are linear in nature, not circular. Circular logic allows decisions which have no consequences, the same as circular morality. It's an attempt to justify acts which will have no consequences for the actor.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> 
> A woman who voluntary engages in sexual activity, and gets pregnant has already made the decision to procreate. A life has been started, and it is entitled to live and grow. The woman's decision to have an abortion is solving a perceived problem with an immoral act, the killing of a living being. Terms like "unviable tissue mass" are euphemisms used to assuage the guilt of the participants of the immoral act of murder. A child conceived in an act of love or lust is not an accident. The intentions of individuals playing at procreation have already made their decision, and know the coming result.
> 
> Women who become pregnant as the result of rape, have a huge moral quandary. Whatever their decision, they will have to live the rest of their lives with a decision which may very well haunt them. I'm glad I don't have to make the decision. Whatever her decision in that case, it will be between her and her maker.


I'm not trying to raise a pro or anti-abortion debate at all, and I think hardly anyone believes abortion is a _good_ form of birth control, but many who think abortion is very wrong would still have one if raped by a madman. Many people who think eating meat or hunting are immoral acts would do it if they were starving, too. Other people don't think meat-eating or hunting are morally wrong and in fact, enjoy these things.

Obviously, if someone stole a loaf of bread during a hurricane, he wouldn't even be prosecuted; we trust society to know that although this was necessary to keep someone alive, stealing is still wrong, and this one incident doesn't make it acceptable to steal a loaf of bread tomorrow on your way home from work.

How about capital punishment? Is it wrong for the state to take a life, or is it "societal self defense" against a predator? Some think killing is always wrong, except when...


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Morallity is nothing more than a collection of behavioral values agreed upon by various assemblages of individuals. Laws are those values enforced. In modern Germany you can be prosecuted for violating the game and hunting laws- Most of which were codified by Hermann Goering.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by VS_
> 
> How about capital punishment? Is it wrong for the state to take a life, or is it "societal self defense" against a predator? Some think killing is always wrong, except when...


Capital punishment is deemed as moral by the laws of the governed. Most people believe that there are such acts that are so heinous, that the person committing the act should be expunged from society. This summary judgement goes back to the beginnings of society. Whether by banishment from the village (which meant death in some form), or by deprivation of life, this is how society has dealt with these crimes.

Call it "societal self-defense", or execution, it serves to cull the most vile from society. Society has always recognized the right to defense of self, hearth, and home, even the expense of the violator's life.

In earlier years, rapists were executed. Rapists and other sexual predators usually are never "cured" or rehabilitated, but that's the stuff of more threads.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

It seems as though we've segued from a discussion of moral hierarchies to a discussion of moral relativism, which is a related but distinct concept. I don't think we've touched on any real examples of moral conflict yet -- where a difficult choice must be made between two competing compelling moral issues... anyone?

_*I specify 'compelling', because otherwise any 'immoral' act could be lamely justified as the lesser of two evils, e.g. "I have an obligation to care for my hungry child, but I have no cash on me; it's wrong to steal, but the store won't really suffer if I take this cookie, so theft is justified". Gimme a break._


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> Women who become pregnant as the result of rape, have a huge moral quandary. Whatever their decision, they will have to live the rest of their lives with a decision which may very well haunt them. I'm glad I don't have to make the decision. Whatever her decision in that case, it will be between her and her maker.


You've labelled a non-raped woman having an abortion an immoral murderer. If one uses your view of morality, one has to judge the raped woman who has an abortion as an immoral murderer as well. It is disingenuous for you to say that it is between her and her maker because you've already judged her. If abortion is murder, I fail to see what the raped woman's moral quandary is--it is wrong regardless of circumstance. There are no moral uncertainties in your world, only black and white, right and wrong.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

I find religions interest in attempting to moralize sexual and reproductive behavior very interesting. It is really their last attempt to control the flock. For the most part, almost everyone regardless of religious beliefs find all of the following to be immoral and criminal:

Murder
Theft
Rape
Assault

These define the basic categories of actions that one person can perform against another without consent. More precisely, these thing are immoral because they harm another person or deprive them of their property. In my belief, this is the true basis of moral behavior: Don't harm another person or take from them.

Vices:
Smoking
Drinking
Gambling
Drug abuse

Self destructive for sure and likely to cause anguish to your loved ones. But it's your life and it's not my business to tell you how to live it. Religion want to help and convert you if you do these things.

Now comes all the things the church gets up in arms about:

premarital sex: There is no really good reason why sex between un-married consenting adults is morally wrong. And in fact, most people know this which is why a huge percentage of "dating" people have sex. 

homosexuality: Not my cup of tea, but once again, among consenting adults, no solid moral reason against it. No one is harmed, no one's rights are violated. But all the homos are going to burn in hell.

abortion: Pregnancy seems to be considered a "punishment" for pre-marital sex and abortion is a way to avoid that punishment,so it is wrong. All the blab about when life begins is a bunch of bull. If anyone here thinks they know please answer the following two questions:

1) At what point in time does the soul inhabit the fetus?
2) How many souls can inhabit a body at once?

Also, any progress that medical science makes to mitigate other "God given punishments" for premarital or homosexual sex such as HPV vacines are fought against by the church and right wing religious constitiuents.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

My philosophy is WWCD?

(What Would Churchill Do?)

[Most often I interpret this as smoking a cigar]


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by android_
> 
> homosexuality: Not my cup of tea, but once again, among consenting adults, no solid moral reason against it. No one is harmed, no one's rights are violated. But all the homos are going to burn in hell.


Is this satire?


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> My philosophy is WWCD?
> 
> ...


No brandy?

"Patriotism is not for those who represent wealth and power. It is good enough for the people" Emma Goldman


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by android_
> 
> I find religions interest in attempting to moralize sexual and reproductive behavior very interesting. It is really their last attempt to control the flock. For the most part, almost everyone regardless of religious beliefs find all of the following to be immoral and criminal:
> 
> ...


But if, as you suggest, the only actions that can be legitimately identified as "immoral" are those which "harm another person or deprive them of their property," then why do you seem to have a problem with "the church" promoting its own code of morality? In other words, how can it be "wrong" for a church to preach its message, when it does so without violating an individual's person or property?


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think it's meant to be read, "No one is harmed, no one's rights are violated. But *[despite this, 'the church' insists that]* all the homos are going to burn in hell.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Well, I may be bringing a knife to a gunfight by jumping into the intelectual fray here...but this is an issue that I have recently been exposed to in a different light...when I was in my late teens, and just finding my political identity, I was adamantly (sp?) against certain things like abortion...I was a bit of an angry youth, mostly angry at the irresponsibility of my peers, and it always peeved me when some ditzy cheerleader got herself knocked up by some meathead and then went and had an abortion (because, of course, it's sooooo much easier than buying a box of condoms)...but then one day, after going on a tyrade about the subject to my parents, they said something to the effect of, "we all make mistakes, lets just hope you wouldnt be judged so critically should your girlfriend turn up pregnant" (you gotta remember, I was probably making only about $6 an hour in those days)...anyway...this kind of put things into perspective for me...after that, I understood that though some may use this thing as a form of birth control, some people really need to do this, and they arent bad for it...I still dissaggreed with the practice, but at least now I understood why it may be necessary...Then, just recently, I got into a debate with somebody about it again...citing the fact that I dont think it should be outlawed, but I wished that people wouldnt be so irresponsible...to which they replied that it is probably the most responsible thing that they can do, and besides...if (these people) were as stupid and irresponsible as I said they were, it would probably be better that they didnt procreate...and then it hit me...my whole view was changed...I'm still not a suporter of abbortion (and probably never will be), but at least I can truly understand why it is a necessary thing...

The moral (pun intended) of my story??? Your perceptions should be ever adaptable, and not clouded by one's own conception of "morality"...true there are some golden rules which should be followed for the good of all...but at the same time, when it come to an issue as touchy as one like abortion, it's important to stick to your beliefs, but at the same time, dont confuse them with some testament to your own morality which exposes the carachter flaws of others whom may disagree with you...you never know what others might have to teach you...

*****
[image]https://radio.weblogs.com/0119318/Screenshots/rose.jpg[/image]"See...What I'm gonna do is wear a shirt only once, and then give it right away to the laundry...eh?
A new shirt every day!!!"​


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Here is a good article I've recently read which bears upon the topic at hand:

In Search Of Darkness

Found Lots Of It

By Fred Reed

February 15, 2006

The other day I found myself trapped next to the lobotomy box in the house of a friend. The show was one of those dismal productions based on sexual innuendo, the sort that I would have found titillating when I was eleven. The format was not complex. Neither, I suspect, was the audience.

Several shapeless young couples sat together. The host asked them seriatim such questions as, â€œOther than your wife, who did you last take a shower with?â€ or â€œWhat part of your anatomy does your husband most like to kiss?â€ The studio audience invariably moaned, â€œOooooooooooooooooh!â€ like third-graders who have heard a bad word. The couples themselves giggled with delicious embarrassment also in the manner of dimwitted children.

I happily imagined sending them to some barely heard-of tribe in the Amazon Basin for use in human sacrifice. Almost human. Something involving army ants would have done nicely.

The sexual reference didnâ€™t offend me. I have misspent more hours in third-world skin bars than those people had aggregate brain cells, which means at least three skin bars. Iâ€™ve seen raunchy sex shows to the point of boredom, and am not real shockable. Pornography doesnâ€™t upset me. If I had to choose whether my kids watched Dory Does Dallas, or Oprah, I might go with Dory.

No, it was the infantilism, the snickering, low-IQ tastelessness of a class of people who have no class. These, with their childish prurience and slum-dwellerâ€™s aversion to civilized existence, now dominate American culture. Anyone who points out that they are crass finds himself attacked as elitistâ€"which, since elitism simply means the view that the better is preferable to the worse, all people should be.

We are not supposed to use phrases like â€œthe lower orders,â€ which is the best of reasons for using them. Yet the lower orders exist. Its members are not necessarily poor, and the poor are not necessarily members. Nor is the level of schooling a reliable indicator of loutdom. Nor is intelligence or race a particularly good marker. One may be a moral moron without being unable to tie oneâ€™s shoes. Rather the lower orders consist of people who think fart jokes uproarious.

How did we get here? Probably Henry Ford bears responsibility. He paid workers on his assembly lines a good wage. This was as culturally deplorable as it was economically admirable. Before, the unwashed had lacked the money to impose their tastes, or lack of them, on the society. The moneyed classes of the time may have been reprehensible or contemptible in various ways, but they minded their mannersâ€"if only because it set them apart from the lower orders, perhaps, yet it worked. The middle class likewise eschewed bathroom humor except in such venues as locker rooms, probably for the same reasons. Still, they knew what â€œdistastefulâ€ meant.

But as the peasantry and proletariat gained economic power, inevitably they also asserted dominance over the arts, or entertainment as the arts came to be under their sway, as well as schooling and the nature of acceptable discourse. If millions of people who can afford SUVs want scatological humor, television will accommodate them. Since all watch the same television, no class of people will escape the sex-and-sewage format. This happened. Today the cultivated can no longer insulate themselves from the rabble.

The fear of social inferiority always concerns the peasantariat: â€œYou ainâ€™t no gooderâ€™n me.â€ Until the sudden florescence of pay packets occurred, the lower orders had either accepted that they were the lower orders, however resentfully, or tried to rise. They might learn to speak good English, read widely, and cultivate good manners. Or they might not. If they did, it was likely to work, since in America those who behave and speak like gentlefolk (another inadmissible word) will usually be accepted as such. In either case, they did not impose their barbarousness on others.

Ah, but with their new-found and enormous purchasing power, they discovered that they could do more than compel the production of skateboards, trashy television, and awful music. They could make boorish childishness and ignorance into actual virtues. And did. Thus wretched grammar is now a sign of â€œauthenticity,â€ whatever that might mean, rather than of defective studies. Thus the solemnity with which rap â€œmusicâ€ is taken. Briefly the sound of the black ghetto, it is now around the world the heraldic emblem of the angry unwashed. Thus the degradation of the schools: It is easier to declare oneself educated than to actually become so, and the half-literate now had the power to have themselves so declared.

With the debasement of society came a simultaneous, though not necessarily related, extension of childhood and adolescence. In the remote prehistorical past, which for most today means anything before 1900, the young assumed responsibility early. It wasnâ€™t a moral question, but a practical one. If the plowing didnâ€™t get done, the family didnâ€™t eat. By the age of eighteen, a boy was likely to carry a manâ€™s burdens.

Today, no. Now a combination of the enstupidation of the schools, the inflation of grades, and the threat of class-action suits by the parents of failing students means that an adolescent can graduate without assuming any burden whatsoever. Indeed escaping schooling is easier than finding it. Countless colleges will accept almost anyone and graduate almost anyone. Chores do not exist. Sex and drugs are everywhere available. Few things have obvious consequences.

The result is a cocoon of childhood that stretches on almost as long as one wants it to. I encounter adults in their mid-twenties who cannot be relied upon to show up at an appointed time, who do not read, who judge a professor by whether he makes the material â€œfun,â€ who have no idea where they want to go in life. It is not grownup behavior.

I wonder whether a democracy can ever prosper without declining fast into tasteless decadence. Half of the population is of intelligence below the average, this being the nature of a symmetric distribution. Another goodly number arenâ€™t much better. Once they discover that together they can both sanctify and very nearly require bad behavior and low tastes, will they not do so? With control of the media goes control of the culture. Such is the power of the market.

Thus staged television shows in which fat couples shriek obscenities at each other over discovered infidelities, adipose couplings of no significance yet so absorbing to an audience both puerile and uncouthâ€"but, I suppose, authentic.

â€œOooooooooooooooooooooh!â€

Â©Fred Reed, from:


----------



## LabelKing (Sep 3, 2002)

What a fun article.

It is exactly that prudish prurience, that "Christian" virture, mostly evident of the so called lower orders, that is aggravating.

As per Klaus Kinski:

*'One should judge a man mainly from his depravities. Virtues can be faked. Depravities are real.'*

*'The kind of acting I used to enjoy no longer exists because your prime consideration is the budget, running time, the cost - and whether they'll understand it in Milwaukee.'*

*Dirk Bogarde*


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by android_
> 
> I find religions interest in attempting to moralize sexual and reproductive behavior very interesting. It is really their last attempt to control the flock. For the most part, almost everyone regardless of religious beliefs find all of the following to be immoral and criminal:
> 
> ...


I think that there are two kinds of religious people: those who obey the rules out of fear without knowning (or caring) why those rules exist, and those who obey many of the rules because they understand the basis for them and obey the rest because they accept that someone/something may be wiser then themselves.

Our ability to question everything is wonderful and I think that we should excercise it. But there's a fine line between the intellectual honesty of asking why and the hubris of assuming that any answer I don't understand must be wrong.

Finally, I don't recall any religious group fighting against an HIV vaccine, nor any conservative group. (I assume you meant HIV. HPV, human papilloma virus causes cervical cancer & genital warts.) I could have missed it though.

CT


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> I think that there are two kinds of religious people: those who obey the rules out of fear without knowning (or caring) why those rules exist, and those who obey many of the rules because they understand the basis for them and obey the rest because they accept that someone/something may be wiser then themselves.
> 
> ...


No, Android meant HPV, if I may speak for him. See:


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> Here is a good article I've recently read which bears upon the topic at hand:
> 
> ...


Is that supposed to be tongue in cheek?


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

If a church was truly just a place of non-judgemental fellowship, then you would be right. But the church has up to present been most interested in depriving people of liberty and property. It does this by persuasion and if that doesn't work, intimidation and coercion.

The concept of sex without reproductive or health consequences is a big problem if control is your agenda.

I do believe everyone makes their own choices, but you can't completely ignore the psychology of the deal: You give me resources and your allegiance now and I promise you a great afterlife and if you don't, well your afterlife is going to be painful.



> quote:_Originally posted by J. Homely_
> But if, as you suggest, the only actions that can be legitimately identified as "immoral" are those which "harm another person or deprive them of their property," then why do you seem to have a problem with "the church" promoting its own code of morality? In other words, how can it be "wrong" for a church to preach its message, when it does so without violating an individual's person or property?


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

In my list, I intentionally left out lying. Lying is morally interesting. It is an act that is almost always used to commit or cover up one of the other basic crimes against another person. 

Thus, we have white lies like, "Yes gramma, the beets were great." and "No sweetheart, those pants don't make you look fat."

Even those that consider themselves very moral will bend the truth to avoid insult or injury to another. Pretty cool, eh?


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by android_
> . . . . [T]he church has up to present been most interested in depriving people of liberty and property. It does this by persuasion and if that doesn't work, intimidation and coercion.


In England and America, at least, that varies from denomination to denomination. For example, from the outside, one sees the Roman church but not the Congregational as constraining its adherents.


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by android_
> 
> If a church was truly just a place of non-judgemental fellowship, then you would be right. But the church has up to present been most interested in depriving people of liberty and property. It does this by persuasion and if that doesn't work, intimidation and coercion.


But there's no force or deception involved, at least no more than is involved in convincing someone to wear $3,000 bespoke suits because they will make the wearer feel better about himself and/or help him to make a more "powerful" impression on others.

Or an even clearer example is taxes -- I am literally forced, by threat of incarceration, to surrender my own personal resources in order to shelter, feed and educate strangers. By your standards, it would seem that that is far more immoral, than anything the church does. When the Jehovah's Witnesses stop by, I can tell them to get lost, but when the Taxman comes a-knockin' I have no such freedom.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

Taxes, don't get me started!!! 

First, I don't think the $3000 suit is a very good example, someone has put skill, labor and material into making a suit and hopefully both parties have agreed that the exchange is worthwhile. Both the suit and the money are useful to the recipient.

The philosphical basis for taxes is that you have agreed to conceed some small portion of your personal liberty to the government in return for the services it offers. If you don't like it, you are supposed to move to France or Canada (and maybe be Michael Jackson's neighbor!) If enough of us don't like it, we vote out the incumbents or have a revolution.

If the government really wanted to make you happy about paying taxes, they would call them tithes and promise you a nice afterlife if you paid them without grumbling. Oh wait, that's already been used.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

The philosphical basis for religion is that you have agreed to conceed some small portion of your personal liberty to something higher than yourself in return for the services it offers (redemption, self-fulfillment, humility, compassion). There are no imposed requirements if you decide not to practice, though moving to France would place oneself in an environment of likekinds.

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by android_
> 
> First, I don't think the $3000 suit is a very good example, someone has put skill, labor and material into making a suit and hopefully both parties have agreed that the exchange is worthwhile. Both the suit and the money are useful to the recipient.


But it's still based on the underlying premise that the product will give you a 'better' life in way. Same with religion. I don't understand why it would be any more 'wrong' to try to persuade someone not to have casual sex than to try to persuade them to get working buttonholes on their jacket sleeves. Ultimately, it's their choice.


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> The philosphical basis for religion is that you have agreed to conceed some small portion of your personal liberty to something higher than yourself in return for the services it offers (redemption, self-fulfillment, humility, compassion). There are no imposed requirements if you decide not to practice, though moving to France would place oneself in an environment of likekinds.
> 
> ...


Yeah, what he said.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> The philosphical basis for religion is that you have agreed to conceed some small portion of your personal liberty to something higher than yourself in return for the services it offers (redemption, self-fulfillment, humility, compassion). There are no imposed requirements if you decide not to practice, though moving to France would place oneself in an environment of likekinds.


Religion has historically been a contract: I do/don't do this and that and the god(s) rewards/punishes me for have done/not done this and that.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by rws_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh certainly. And those denominations that are truly places of loving fellowship tend to be the least judgemental and critical of those who commit the "carnal sins."

And not surprisingly, the denominations that are most critical of carnally related sins criticize these denominations as too lenient and being Satanically influenced.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

Citizenship has historically been a contract: I do/don't do this and that and the state rewards/punishes me for have done/not done this and that.

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

It's important to insist that recognizing and embracing the vastly complex nature of moral reasoning IS NOT the same as moral relativism.

For instance, you could argue that the man who steals a potato to save his starving family is ABSOLUTELY right to do so. That has nothing whatever to do with the claim that it may be right for him, or that some cultures would say it's right and others would say it's wrong.

In my view, you can't be taken seriously as a moralist unless you recognize that every case, with all its circumstances, demands the most strenuous moral reasoning. Otherwise you're just an automaton working off a list of do's and don't's.

Stap my vitals!


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bosthist, the moral coins fall to one side or the other. There is no edge on which to balance. I'm in no position to impose my morality on anyone. I only make moral judgements, and that is not the same as imposing morality.

I'm free to call the woman who has an voluntary sex, then an abortion, an immoral murderer; because that is my belief, and my right of free speech. She is free to ignore me, change her behavior, or ask God's forgiveness. I have done nothing but bring her immoral behavior to her attention.

This is part of the hyprocrisy of the pro-abortion movement. They want all the privileges, and none of the responsibility of being reminded of their actions.

We all make moral judgements, either for our own behavior, or the behavior of others. Whether we communicate those judgements is up to us.

There is further misunderstanding as to forgiveness. I often see the relatives of murder victims say that they forgive the murderer for the murder of their loved one, relative, etc. That person is in no position to forgive the murderer for anything except the hurt which they have suffered in losing the loved one, relative, etc. The murderer can only be forgiven by God, if the murderer confesses and repents for the deed.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> . . . . I'm free to call the woman . . . an immoral murderer; because that is my belief, and my right of free speech. She is free to ignore me, change her behavior, or ask God's forgiveness.
> 
> . . . . We all make moral judgements, either for our own behavior, or the behavior of others. Whether we communicate those judgements is up to us. . . .


Well said, Dennis! But I think you'll find, oddly enough, some will tell you that they don't discern judge.


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> 
> Bosthist, the moral coins fall to one side or the other. There is no edge on which to balance. I'm in no position to impose my morality on anyone. I only make moral judgements, and that is not the same as imposing morality.


Is there such a thing as a truly objective morality? How can there be? What makes a thing moral or immoral besides our having classified it as such, based on our own individual or collective values?


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I said you can't call one woman an immoral murderer, and then say the other woman faces moral uncertainties--that is a logical inconsistency. In your formulation there are no moral quandaries. Abortion is murder.

It is a cop out to say that the decision of a raped woman to have an abortion is between her and her maker. Will you call one woman an immoral murderer to her face and then keep silent about the immorality of the other?


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by J. Homely_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Morality is determined, not in the aggregate of the world, but in the lesser political and religious subdivisions of the world. While Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others espouse an omnipotent God, who ultimately sets the morality of their world, there are other groups who believe in an omnipotent being that sets the morality for their world. This difference in moral beliefs is among the base causes for warfare and killing throughout the world. There is even violent disagreement among Christians, Jews, and Muslims as to how morality is viewed, and they believe in the same God. Witness the violence going on today in reaction to a caricature of the prophet Muhammed.

Ethics among homogenous groups are what determine "objective morality".

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> 
> Ethics among homogenous groups are what determine "objective morality".


So does a brothel comprise a homogenous group?


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> This is part of the hyprocrisy of the pro-abortion movement. They want all the privileges, and none of the responsibility of being reminded of their actions.


I don't behavior is unique to the abortion movement. Seems to me that a lot of people don't want to be reminded of the all the good work done in God's name such as the Inquisition or the Crusades.

I guess they don't want to be reminded of the actions of the organizations with which they associate.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

With all due respect android, that was nearly 1,000 years ago. Its an apples to oranges comparison.

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by android_
> 
> I don't behavior is unique to the abortion movement. Seems to me that a lot of people don't want to be reminded of the all the good work done in God's name such as the Inquisition or the Crusades.
> 
> I guess they don't want to be reminded of the actions of the organizations with which they associate.


That's a different issue. You're talking about holding someone accountable for actions taken in the past by an institution with which the person is currently associated.

That's completely different from holding someone accountable for the results of their own actions, or the implications of their own beliefs.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I may very well do that, as is my right. However, the woman who is raped also has an alternative; she may carry the infant to full-term, and then give it up for adoption. There are always alternatives to murder of the unborn.

The woman does face a moral uncertainty. She was made pregnant by the violent, immoral act of a man. Does that act beget an immoral act by the woman who does decide to abort her pregnancy? Yes, it does. There is no difference in the immorality of either abortion. They are both murder of the unborn child. Both women will have to face judgement for their actions.

As for the decision to confront one or the other, it is the prerogative of the individual to decide which battles in which to engage. One may remain silent, but that silence can never be contrued to be tacit or implied agreement.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

Ok, that goes a long way towards clarifying what initially seemed like a huge breakdown in logic in your initial presentation. However, I'm I'm still unclear about how you can reconcile these two seemingly contradictory assertions, given your moral framework:


> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> Bosthist, the moral coins fall to one side or the other. There is no edge on which to balance.





> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> The woman does face a moral uncertainty. She was made pregnant by the violent, immoral act of a man.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

So I had my hypothetical abortion a day ago and I don't want to hear about it from you anymore than you want to hear about what happened a thousand years ago.

_With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day._

So that would imply you should mind your own business and leave me alone, right?



> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> With all due respect android, that was nearly 1,000 years ago. Its an apples to oranges comparison.
> 
> ...


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by J. Homely_
> 
> Ok, that goes a long way towards clarifying what initially seemed like a huge breakdown in logic in your initial presentation. However, I'm I'm still unclear about how you can reconcile these two seemingly contradictory assertions, given your moral framework:
> 
> ...


To me there is no moral uncertainty. Her abortion is still the murder of an unborn infant. She may very well face moral uncertainty in her own mind. My intent was to show her moral uncertainty, not mine.

As I also mentioned, there are alternatives to abortion, such as adoption.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by android_
> 
> So I had my hypothetical abortion a day ago and I don't want to hear about it from you anymore than you want to hear about what happened a thousand years ago.
> 
> ...


Ok, we're just being silly now.


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> To me there is no moral uncertainty. Her abortion is still the murder of an unborn infant. She may very well face moral uncertainty in her own mind. My intent was to show her moral uncertainty, not mine.


I think I understand what you're saying now. I'm not sure why you chose invest your hypothetical rape victim with a moral dilemma you claim isn't valid, but hey, anything goes with hypotheticals, I suppose...


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by J. Homely_
> 
> 
> > quote:_Originally posted by android_
> ...


No, J. H., I think that android is attempting to say in an ostensibly jocular way that discussing the matter makes him nervous.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> 
> To me there is no moral uncertainty. Her abortion is still the murder of an unborn infant. She may very well face moral uncertainty in her own mind. My intent was to show her moral uncertainty, not mine.


I don't want to get into the "when does life begin?" debate, but there is no such thing as an "unborn infant".


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by J. Homely_
> Ok, we're just being silly now.


No, not silly at all. The point I'm trying to make in a rather round about way is this.

First, God and his morals are timeless. Therefore if you think the Inquisition and the Crusades were wrong, but not God's fault, then who's fault was it? That's easy, the church leaders who were fallible and corrupt human beings.

Just like the present day fallible and corrupt church leaders and that are telling you abortion, birth control and homosexuality are evil and immoral today. Just like leaders of the past, they have an agenda to grab power and fame by trying to tell you what's right and wrong.

But that's different, I'm sure you'll say and I ask why? Do you think the people who did those things in the name of God 1000 years ago were any less convinced they were doing right by killing heretics than you are convinced you're doing right today condemning abortion and birth control as murder?

Do you think they didn't really believe that they were punishing those who were immoral just as you believe criticizing a woman who's had an abortion deserved to be punished today?


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> I don't want to get into the "when does life begin?" debate, but there is no such thing as an "unborn infant".


Most RTL's have never really given a whit's thought to when life really begins, but even by their own "rules", it can be proven that life does not begin at conception.


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by android_
> Most RTL's have never really given a whit's thought to when life really begins...


Come on, it's just lazy to assume that everyone whose perspective differs from yours is intellectually dishonest...

and/or corrupt:


> quote:_Originally posted by android_
> Just like the present day fallible and corrupt church leaders and that are telling you abortion, birth control and homosexuality are evil and immoral today. Just like leaders of the past, they have an agenda to grab power and fame by trying to tell you what's right and wrong.


But then, you seem to contradict yourself here:


> quote:... do you think the people who did those things in the name of God 1000 years ago were any less convinced they were doing right by killing heretics than you are convinced you're doing right today condemning abortion and birth control as murder?


So are these people being intellectually dishonest in a cynical grab for power and fame, or are they misguided true believers? You can't have it both ways.

By the way, where are you reading in some supposed condemnation of birth control and/or abortion on my part? I think you're confused.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by J. Homely_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not intellectually dishonest, just lazy....



> quote:
> and/or corrupt:
> 
> 
> ...


I don't see why being a believer and a power grapper are mutually exclusive.



> quote:
> By the way, where are you reading in some supposed condemnation of birth control and/or abortion on my part? I think you're confused.


I meant "you" in the plural, not you personally.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by android_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In most of my reading and research, "RTL'ers" have always insisted that life begins at conception. The concept of viability has always been used by the pro-abortion crowd to support abortion into the third trimester of pregnancy.

To support the pro-abortion argument, the question becomes, then - When does life begin?

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by android_
> I don't see why being a believer and a power grapper are mutually exclusive.


They're not, theoretically. But realistically, when we talk about a person promoting an idea in order to achieve fame and power, the rather strong implication is that those objectives, rather than authentic commitment to the principle, are the real motivation; it strikes me as a wee bit disingenuous to suggest otherwise. But yes, technically, I suppose you're right.
[]


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> In most of my reading and research, "RTL'ers" have always insisted that life begins at conception. The concept of viability has always been used by the pro-abortion crowd to support abortion into the third trimester of pregnancy.
> 
> To support the pro-abortion argument, the question becomes, then - When does life begin?


Sorry, no support for abortion. Just because I don't condemn somebody for doing something doesn't mean I support that action.

But, life begins some time later than conception. I don't know exactly when.

Consider this sequence of event.

Man and woman (married, in the dark, missionary style) have sex. a sperm cell swims like crazy and finally one lucky dude gets to the ovum first. At this point, the sperm penetrates the outer skin of the ovum and the chromosomes and DNA all start combining. This is called a zygote in medical terms. Note that the cell and ovum are individual cells, but when they combine, they become a single cell of human tissue called a zygote.

Now, in Heaven, at the same instant the cells combine the GDP-777 notes the occurence and dispatches a soul. The combination of the sould and the cell is now consider by some to be a full blown human being.

Now, cellular division starts to occur as the embryo develops. Cells divide, get bigger and then divide again.

Now here comes the complicated part because a variety of things can happen at this point.

1) The embryo develops, is born, grows up and supports you in your old age. Wow, great!

2) Sometime before the 9th day after conception, the darn thing breaks in half. Now we have to assume that souls can't be split up, (there is no religious reference that indicates that souls split or that more than one soul can inhabit a body at a time. A soul and one or more demons, yes, but no scriptural or theological work to indicate multiple souls may inhabit a body.) So what we've got here is a live human being and a dead body. The GDP-777 notes the presence of the new dead body and dispatches a soul for it also. Soul hits the body and we have a living human again. But darn, we're on Day 7 already, so this poor kid's life didn't begin at conception.

2) God kills it. What??? Yep, it is estimated that up to 78% of all conceptions end in miscarriage. Many without the woman even knowing she is pregnant. Now, I'd like to believe this is becuase God knows all of these are going to turn out messed up, but then why does he let a lot of other messed up ones sneak through? Beats me, but the clear winner for the early termination of unborn infants contest would be God. But, maybe the GDP-777 knew that one wasn't going to make it, so it didn't dispatch a soul. Well, if it doesn't dispatch a soul for the embryos that God is going to kill, why the heck would it dispatch a sould for the ones somebody else is going to kill?? I mean either they make it or they don't.

Anyway, case 2 clearly blows the argument that life begins at conception. And if you can't pinpoint an exact time, then you have to admit you really don't know. And if you really don't know, then you can't call it murder.


----------



## tck13 (Nov 4, 2005)

To get back to the original posterâ€™s question about moral hierarchy... 

Couldnâ€™t the first criteria be honesty? Honesty with oneself? If one is honest in a decision making process with oneself, wouldnâ€™t that carry one through any situation morally? Being honest in any situation, it would seem can get one out of any situation morally no matter what the situation? It sounds simplistic but seems to work in any hypothetical situation (abortion, suicide, crime, whatever).


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by tck13_
> 
> To get back to the original posterâ€™s question about moral hierarchy...
> 
> Couldnâ€™t the first criteria be honesty? Honesty with oneself? If one is honest in a decision making process with oneself, wouldnâ€™t that carry one through any situation morally? Being honest in any situation, it would seem can get one out of any situation morally no matter what the situation? It sounds simplistic but seems to work in any hypothetical situation (abortion, suicide, crime, whatever).


Not necessarily. I was robbed of all my possessions, and then stole a loaf of bread to feed my starving family. The laws in my tyrannical state are unjust, and I know that if I confess to this minor transgression, I will go to jail and my children will be left starving and orphaned. How does honesty with myself or others resolve that?


----------



## tck13 (Nov 4, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by J. Homely_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of course, since I posted it I guess I have to try and defend it!

Tough oneâ€¦

Just going by what is written above, honesty doesnâ€™t mean confession. If â€œyouâ€ (not you personally of course) are honestly trying to feed you and your family to survive, then how can that immoral?

If you mean in your story that â€œyouâ€ were caught stealing and asked to confess to stealing bread, being honest and confessing may bring about unexpected good consequences despite the gloomy circumstances mentioned in your story. (I am trying to look at the glass as being half full of course) I try to believe (personally) that even if the current circumstances are bad, things will work out in the future. Itâ€™s hard to predict the future of any given circumstance especially if only hypothetical.

Or, I guess one could lie if accused of stealing the bread and get away with it and know that one lied to protect oneâ€™s family. I heard someone describe morality as â€œdoing something that you feel good afterâ€ (not my grammar). Can one feel good about lying to save oneâ€™s family? Is that a case when lying can be good and be â€œmoralâ€? Donâ€™t know.

Finally, lifeâ€™s not fair. Yeah, people get tortured, die, and whatever else all of the time whether or not one is honest. But, does oneâ€™s honesty still the top of the hierarchy even if the consequences are not desirable or good or lead to death (whether unfairly or not)? In other words, did oneâ€™s honesty despite the consequences still leave the world a better place? Would the family in the story carry on and be ok in the long run? Possibly, or my guess would be probably. Maybe the death of a father would prompt action by the rest of the family to leave the unjust place in which they live.

In other words, honesty would be a higher good despite the consequences or outcome.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by android_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


excellent post


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by tck13_
> 
> [...snip...]In other words, honesty would be a higher good despite the consequences or outcome.


Certainly a valid perspective. At some point, all moral principles have to be somewhat arbitrary, I think. After all, _why_ is "the greater good" more important than I am, dammit? Who cares about these other guys? I don't know them! Why _shouldn't_ it be all about ME?!?!?!?!
[]


----------



## tck13 (Nov 4, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by J. Homely_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


HAHA! It can't be all about you since it is all about me!

Now, just tell me who I have to sleep with or kill to get a pair of John Lobb Tudor boots in Parisian brown in size 12 without paying for them. That's what I want to know.


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by tck13_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sex brings the possibility of unwanted pregnancy or the transmission of potentially fatal disease. Taking a life is to be frowned upon. Your own financial resources are more appropriately spent on the necessities of life and ensuring financial security for yourself and those for whom you are morally and/or legally responsible.

Theft is clearly the most moral option. Let's be honest about that.
[]


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by J. Homely_
> 
> 
> > quote:_Originally posted by tck13_
> ...


Thanks, both, for the midday amusement. Sooner or later, we all sound like Calvin (not John, the other one!).


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by rws_
> Thanks, both, for the midday amusement.


The implicit assumption on your part that my comments were made merely 'in jest' betrays an inexcusable dismissal of my conscientiously-developed and well-reasoned moral hierarchy. If you consider yourself capable of challenging the reasoning of my personal ethics, I certainly encourage you to put your best efforts towards an equally well-conceived and well-articulated response. Otherwise, I would ask that, in respect for civility, you refrain from further demonstrations of contempt.
[]



> quote:_Originally posted by rws_
> Sooner or later, we all sound like Calvin...


or Hobbes.

Ok, I'm done now.


----------



## tck13 (Nov 4, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by J. Homely_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now it's gettin' deep.


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by J. Homely_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That "other" was, of course, the Calvin whom I was thinking of; and it was the cartoonist's Calvin, not Hobbes, who was so self-absorbed, wasn't it? (Hmm, perhaps a good excuse to buy that hefty _Complete Calvin and Hobbes_.)


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by rws_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I actually wasn't sure which Calvin you were referring to -- the comic strip character, President Coolidge, or the legendary Mr. Klein...

I know about the strip, but I'm not really familiar with it -- I was just making a pun with [Thomas] Hobbes to bring the conversation back 'round to ethical issues...


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by J. Homely_
> I know about the strip, but I'm not really familiar with it . . . .


Really? You've missed a great deal of hilarity! Though the strip is no longer drawn, compilations are readily available -- and the strip does treat ethical issues, too.


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by rws_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'll have to get to it one of these days...


----------

