is thinking about children sexually wrong?

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

What moral issues arise between me and myself?

Between doing what is right and what is wrong.

[mist]

Originally Posted by Boogster

People's opinions may differ, but I would argue that merely substantiates my assertion. Morality cannot be split according to opinion.
If there is such a thing - ideally speaking - as moral perfection, ie. being devoid of moral imperfection, this necessarily means that there must be a basic distinction between right and wrong. In fact, morality itself demands this. Morality is essentially a system of rules, not ideals - in the sense that one is not moral when merely trying to be; in the words of C.S Lewis, you might just as well expect to be congratulated because whenever you do a sum, you try to get it quite right'.
Moreover, I would define morality as not just concerned with the the harmony of individuals and relationships, not just a social contract, but intrinsically bound with the general purpose of life as a whole. The fact is, whatever you believe, the possiblity of an afterlife cannot be disproved - and this adds a whole new dimension to morality.

i'd have said that morality was a system of values, rather than rules, but i guess that's more semantics than effect.

i'm not sure how the possibility of an afterlife affects morality tho. every person, other than the odd one with severe mental problems, has a moral compass. I think most people try and live by what they see as right (does this make me an optimist?) and i'd hope that people would do this with or without the carrot and stick approach. personally, i try and live to my morals because i feel better about myself as a person if i do.

anyway, hypothetically, if morality cannot be split, this implies that there can be but one moral position. So, say for example, i belive that morality requires that gay people be allowed to marry should they wish, and you believe that morality requires that gay people not be allowed to marry. these views are fairly irreconcilable. if there is only one moral position, which one of us is right? and more importantly, how do you decide which side is right in an arbitrary situation? note, which side is right, not which you agree with.

-mist

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by mist

I think most people try and live by what they see as right (does this make me an optimist?) and i'd hope that people would do this with or without the carrot and stick approach. personally, i try and live to my morals because i feel better about myself as a person if i do.

Depends what you mean by the word 'try'. I could perhaps agree that many people tried to live a life based on what they believed to be 'right'; but it is likely that they would try and often fail, and also that what they believed was 'right' was, in fact, wrong.

anyway, hypothetically, if morality cannot be split, this implies that there can be but one moral position. So, say for example, i belive that morality requires that gay people be allowed to marry should they wish, and you believe that morality requires that gay people not be allowed to marry. these views are fairly irreconcilable. if there is only one moral position, which one of us is right? and more importantly, how do you decide which side is right in an arbitrary situation? note, which side is right, not which you agree with.

We are now on the verge of discussing 'truth', and not morality. Truth is much harder to attempt to define - impossible, perhaps.
We might have to agree to disagree. But it's a difficult situation. Should I, believing that gay marriage is wrong, be prepared to compromise? This might seem like the moral choice in one sense, avoiding conflict - but have I done the right thing? Should I have stood up for what I believed to be irrevocably true? Difficult to say.
I'd probably just pretend to be a tree and hope that noone missed my opinion.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Boogster

This, of course, is true. But I am arguing that there must (or should) be only one standard to judge morality by. If there were two, then both standards would be invalidated. For example, if you were playing football and there were two referees (or two rulebooks) - one who ruled that a goal would be scored if the ball missed the goal, and another who ruled that to score, the ball would have to cross the goal line - the game would be totally unplayable.

Isnt that the role the legal system plays, ie that of the referree? Whoever has the greatest access to physical force generally gets to enforce their moral standards.

[mist]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Depends what you mean by the word 'try'. I could perhaps agree that many people tried to live a life based on what they believed to be 'right'; but it is likely that they would try and often fail, and also that what they believed was 'right' was, in fact, wrong.

and who decides what is right?

-mist

[Ste]

I bet that everyone in this thread has thought about a child sexually while contributing to the discussion.
Does that make us all morally bad?
I don't think anyone is going to go away and rape a child because of it. (well i hope not)

Noone in this thread has defined the age of said children.
The 'acceptable age' has risen of course over the past 2000 years and seems to differ between different cultures. Does this mean that previous generations were immoral? Other cultures are immoral?

There are several things such as bombings, and murder, and other violent acts, where planning is all you need to be convicted of the act.

Planning may be required but what about simply thinking about it? And anyway, some kind of evidence that you were actually going to carry out something is generally needed.

Can I just mention that it seems that QDS has bought himself a spellchecker! Much more readable.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Between doing what is right and what is wrong.

That's not an answer.

Can you define a right or wrong in the context of a single individual? For example, most people would say it's wrong to steal someone else's property, but is it wrong to steal your own property? How does that even make sense?

Imagine you're in a desert island/last man on earth scenario--are there any morally right or wrong decisions you can make?

I think morality is all about interactions between people. To the extent there are no such interactions, then what need for morality?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

That's not an answer.

Can you define a right or wrong in the context of a single individual? For example, most people would say it's wrong to steal someone else's property, but is it wrong to steal your own property? How does that even make sense?

Imagine you're in a desert island/last man on earth scenario--are there any morally right or wrong decisions you can make?

I think morality is all about interactions between people. To the extent there are no such interactions, then what need for morality?

It depends what you believe the purpose of morality is, once you get right down to it. If the answer is somehow connected to promoting the life and happyness of the individual, then sure, morality would apply on a desert island - taking heroin is generally derogatory to your long-term happyness, regardless of whether there are others around you or not, and hence would always be 'wrong' when judged from the standpoint of rational self-interest (I use similar logic to come to the conclusion that 'thinking sexually about children' is wrong, even though noone else is going to be hurt). If morality only applies when dealing with others then its difficult to see how you can end up with anything other than a crude list of "Thou shalt not" statements, and there's no obvious reason for anyone to bother with it.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

That's not an answer.

Can you define a right or wrong in the context of a single individual? For example, most people would say it's wrong to steal someone else's property, but is it wrong to steal your own property? How does that even make sense?

Imagine you're in a desert island/last man on earth scenario--are there any morally right or wrong decisions you can make?

I think morality is all about interactions between people. To the extent there are no such interactions, then what need for morality?

Yes. Suicide, perhaps? Pride, greed, cowardice - these are all individual faults (though some people may be more guilty than others).

To be honest, I am also (once again) thinking from a religious base. I think morality is concerned with more than interaction between people - that it also concerns interaction with God.

Besides, we do not live our lives removed from everyone else. It is inconsequential to define right and wrong from such a position. And I am merely arguing that without acknowledging that, for example, self-conceit is an individual fault that must be faced by the individual, relationships - whatever moral standards we impose upon them - can never work.

[Dante Hicks]

What's wrong with "thou shall not" statements (if they were just/rational, etc)?

Confusing morality and rational self-interest seems muddle headed to me. Much better to use a term like 'healthy' (as I've argued elsewhere) than 'moral' or 'right'.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

What's wrong with "thou shall not" statements (if they were just/rational, etc)?

Confusing morality and rational self-interest seems muddle headed to me. Much better to use a term like 'healthy' (as I've argued elsewhere) than 'moral' or 'right'.

Is the term 'healthy', when applied in this sense, not merely a more indirect advocation of essentially selfish behaviour?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

What's wrong with "thou shall not" statements (if they were just/rational, etc)?

They immediately provoke the reply "And what if I don't?", assuming that performing the prescribed action isn't in the interest of the individual.

Confusing morality and rational self-interest seems muddle headed to me. Much better to use a term like 'healthy' (as I've argued elsewhere) than 'moral' or 'right'.

I'm not confusing them, I'm using rational self-interest as a criteria by which to morally evaluate actions.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

They immediately provoke the reply "And what if I don't?", assuming that performing the prescribed action isn't in the interest of the individual.

Well if we're talking about morality that is a prudent question. If I realise that killing someone is not in my rational self-interest why would I do it anyway (if I'm not rational then obviously the discussion is essentially meaningless).

If we're talking about murdering or stealing then I don't see how can you analyse this purely from a self-interest point of view.

I'm not confusing them, I'm using rational self-interest as a criteria by which to morally evaluate actions.

I always find rational self-interest to be a horribly subjective term, since you end up arguing ad nausea but what's for the best in the long term.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

If we're talking about murdering or stealing then I don't see how can you analyse this purely from a self-interest point of view. .

I'm unsure why not.

I always find rational self-interest to be a horribly subjective term, since you end up arguing ad nausea but what's for the best in the long term.

Well that's true, but its generally more concrete than arguing about something as nebulous as "what is good" when everyone is using completely different definitions of the term.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I'm unsure why not.

Because then we've completed changed the meaning of morality to mean something else and you reach completely anti-common sense type conclusions like it would be moral to murder someone if you could live with the guilt and there was no chance of punishment, etc.

Well that's true, but its generally more concrete than arguing about something as nebulous as "what is good" when everyone is using completely different definitions of the term.

As opposed to using completely different meanings of the term 'moral' as in this discussion?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Because then we've completed changed the meaning of morality to mean something else and you reach completely anti-common sense type conclusions like it would be moral to murder someone if you could live with the guilt and there was no chance of punishment, etc.

What is the 'normal meaning' of the word? If there is a generally accepted meaning, then why do people disagree so often about moral questions?

Incidentally I'd disagree with the claim that it would be moral to murder someone if you could live with the guilt and there was no chance of punishment; hypotheticals like this normally presuppose an unrealistic model of how people form their character and make decisions (for instance it generally assumes that it makes sense to talk about the average person going out to mug old ladies without changing anything else about his personality).

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Yes. Suicide, perhaps?

I don't see that. Suicide might well be preferable to a long, painful illness or terrible loneliness (either of which could be real problems for our mythical desert island dweller).

Pride, greed, cowardice - these are all individual faults (though some people may be more guilty than others).

They are individual faults as seen through the eyes of society. Our mythical desert island dweller is probably oblivious to all of them.

To be honest, I am also (once again) thinking from a religious base. I think morality is concerned with more than interaction between people - that it also concerns interaction with God.

Even a god<->man interaction (if such existed) is beyond the individual.

Besides, we do not live our lives removed from everyone else. It is inconsequential to define right and wrong from such a position.

Of course. Sometimes, however, it can be useful to simply a problem to see what is essential and what isn't.

[mist]

Originally Posted by Boogster

To be honest, I am also (once again) thinking from a religious base. I think morality is concerned with more than interaction between people - that it also concerns interaction with God.

hypothetically if god told you to kill someone, would you? now, odds are that you'll be thinking 'god wouldn't do that', but this is a hypothetical situation, so suspend that disbelief for a moment. if god told you to kill someone would you do it? if not, then morality is little to do with god. if so, you worry me.

hypothetically if someone pissed you off, day in, day out, and you knew you could kill them, not feel bad about it and not get caught or even fall under suspicion, would you? as someone said, if you would then you can argue that morality is based around self interest. if you wouldn't, then morality obviously has something more too it than that.

personally, i believe that a large part of morality comes down to 'treat your neighbour as you'd like to be treated' type stuff. i'd prefer it if people didn't murder me, so therefore i don't think it's right to murder them, etc etc. given that, i don't think it's immoral for people to think whatever they like about me if they don't act on it, so i can't find any moral argument as to why people shouldn't have certain thoughts as long as they don't act on them

-mist

[queball]

It's ok, if God tells you to kill someone, he'll intervene at the last second and say "only joking!".

[JonnyBGood]

I think about queball sexually all the time

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by queball

It's ok, if God tells you to kill someone, he'll intervene at the last second and say "only joking!".

Or he could let you go ahead with it and not let you know that he's saved your victim, Iphigenia-style. God likes playing games with us. After all, it must get pretty dull up there in the sky with only the clouds and your goody-goody-son-who's-actually-the-same-person-as-you-and-so-isn't-really-much-use-for-a-decent-chat for company.

[mist]

Originally Posted by queball

It's ok, if God tells you to kill someone, he'll intervene at the last second and say "only joking!".

after the bit about saddling his ass, i had trouble taking it seriously.
however, the general gist of the story seemed to be that god likes putting people through hell for a giggle?

-mist

[Kurashima]

I think i remember someone once debating this on a phone in show from the US (which someone sent me the MP3 of). Pretty sure he was a member of NAMBLA or something, and his book basically said that to deny being sexually attracted to someone, regardless of age, colour, gender or creed was to deny a basic human instinct. When someone pointed out that society currently was based around laws which we all agree to abide by which didnt exist 10000 years ago, where his thinking seems to be based, his argument was "I didnt ask for those laws, you imposed them upon me. Besides, if you can tell me its acceptable for Britney Spears to dress up in a schoolgirl outfit at 16yrs old and throw herself into a series of very questionable poses, why is it wrong for me to be attracted to a 16yr old boy".

His basic premise regarding a natural human instinct is pretty much correct. Whilst most men would never admit it out loud, the sight of a female thats reached puberty in something which is blatantly sexual will always result in a reaction (i cant speak from the female point of view as to what turns on a female about an under age boy, other than the illegality of it as society defines).

The other thing this brings home is that, basically, NAMBLA are pretty ****ed up.