A Moral Issue

[swordwindtrtrtrt]

interesting debaucle. Me and other people in my class were having this debate a while ago.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's the main thing you have to consider.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is absolutely NO way to prove that its wrong. You just simply can't prove it 100%. You can say its wrong because society says it is. But incest in our society is only wrong because society adopted that claim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a barbarian tribe for instance, incest is regularly practiced and not opposed. So why is it wrong there? Their society has simply adopted that because its the way their society works. Through hundreds of years we have had society's beliefs, morales, customs and ways instilled and drilled in our heads. But none, not one, 0, zilch, nada, are actually right. We would like to think they are, but there is no bonafide way to say they are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back to incest in general. I've heard many many claims that inbreeding causes genetic defects. This is wrong. THere is no proof of this and it just scientifically doesn't make sense. The chances of genetic problems are just as high. Having studied genetics thuroughly for half a semester pretty much, it just doesn't make sense. Half the DNA from mom, half from Dad. So what if they are alike, they actually could be 100% diffrerent due to the trillions and trillions of combinations. There is simply one, one major scientific problem with incest. That is that due to a likeness and similarity of genes, it could result in the death of a species. This is because the species will become so alike that there will be much much less differences and diversity, so if a change occurs, there will be no mutations or differences that survive it.

YES it does cause genetic defects, because the gene pool is small. That is why the monarchys of the 19th century were often mad and deformed, because they could only mary royalty they were all interelated, therefore inbreds.

[BlueLancer]

. A Child should have a Mum and a Dad, being adopted by a gay couple may confuse a child and from a gay couple they wont get a father figure and a mother figure, which a child needs. For the same reason, I'm against single people adopting a child. To adopt you should be in a stable relationship with a male and female.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My friend's father left for good when he was maybe 2 years old, and he's completely stable after being raised only by his mom, so in that sense I disagree that it's absolutely necessary for a child to have a mother and a father.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But having two fathers or two mothers, as said, would be possibly confusing, but the child could accept it. It's not natural, but I saw two documentaries about it, and the children don't really get bullied nor do they think it's weird (though some of the other kids did wonder why the kids had two moms).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As long as people keep the two subjects apart from each other, the unnaturality of having two parents of the same gender and the necessity not to have two parents of the same gender, it's ok. Because ultimately, a child can grow up and become a stable person with upbringing that differs from the social norm.

[insane]

I disagree that it's absolutely necessary for a child to have a mother and a father.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you agree that generally, it is better for a child to have both a mother and a father?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mean, what would you rather have had as a child?

[warri0r45]

 

I disagree that it's absolutely necessary for a child to have a mother and a father.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you agree that generally, it is better for a child to have both a mother and a father?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mean, what would you rather have had as a child?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I live with a single parent - my dad - and I'd say it's made me a better person. Obviously though, mine is only one case and others would argue otherwise.

[insane]

 

 

I disagree that it's absolutely necessary for a child to have a mother and a father.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you agree that generally, it is better for a child to have both a mother and a father?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mean, what would you rather have had as a child?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I live with a single parent - my dad - and I'd say it's made me a better person. Obviously though, mine is only one case and others would argue otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well exactly, and you can't really take scenarios like that because you just don't know. Having both a mother and a father may have made you an even better person than now.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

Well exactly, and you can't really take scenarios like that because you just don't know. Having both a mother and a father may have made you an even better person than now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And maybe having two fathers or mothers may have made you an even better person than now; how is this an argument for anything.

[Rebdragon]

 

Majority opinion is nothing more than a culmination of many subjective moralities- it is still subjective, just like it's components.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see your point. :-k You do see what I'm getting at with my arguments through, right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, I'm looking at a definition of objectivity right now which states "free from biased judgement." I could argue that the majority opinion is the least biased of the whole populations. :wink: I think. :? Nevertheless, it states objectivity can be likened to fairness, which I'm quite sure the majorities view is (as much as can possibly be).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

reference: The Thesaurus section, no. 3.

 

 

 

This might be a bit late, but when I say "objective morality" I mean Truth, the actual Truth that we all strive to uncover. I'm not referring to some other English definition of the word :P .

[warri0r45]

 

 

Majority opinion is nothing more than a culmination of many subjective moralities- it is still subjective, just like it's components.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see your point. :-k You do see what I'm getting at with my arguments through, right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, I'm looking at a definition of objectivity right now which states "free from biased judgement." I could argue that the majority opinion is the least biased of the whole populations. :wink: I think. :? Nevertheless, it states objectivity can be likened to fairness, which I'm quite sure the majorities view is (as much as can possibly be).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

reference: The Thesaurus section, no. 3.

 

 

 

This might be a bit late, but when I say "objective morality" I mean Truth, the actual Truth that we all strive to uncover. I'm not referring to some other English definition of the word :P .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fair enough, but accoring to the definition I decided to go by, my arguments are founded. :D :P Just for interests sake, what are those absolute truthful morals? Is there a list somewhere I can take a look at? Who would decide which morals are worthy of being on the list?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just a few discussion points. :-w

[Satenza]

People who beleive in absolute morals usually take them from their religion like the Bible and so on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also don't agree in gay people adopting. I don't agree with forcing homosexuality down peoples throats i merley think the Government should say very little about their personal opinions on such subjects and treat everyone the same. Gay adoption brings another non-consenting person into the relationship and so shouldn't happen.

[insane]

 

 

 

 

Well exactly, and you can't really take scenarios like that because you just don't know. Having both a mother and a father may have made you an even better person than now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And maybe having two fathers or mothers may have made you an even better person than now; how is this an argument for anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It wasn't an argument. I was asking Bluelancer a question out of curiosity.

[Rebdragon]

 

This might be a bit late, but when I say "objective morality" I mean Truth, the actual Truth that we all strive to uncover. I'm not referring to some other English definition of the word :P .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fair enough, but accoring to the definition I decided to go by, my arguments are founded. :D :P Just for interests sake, what are those absolute truthful morals? Is there a list somewhere I can take a look at? Who would decide which morals are worthy of being on the list?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just a few discussion points. :-w

 

 

 

That's the thing. No one can ever know the absolute morals and be 100% sure. We can guess and analyze what might and probably is an absolute moral, but we can never can be definitely sure. People throughout the ages have made lists of what morals are *probably* within the realm of Truth, but they havn't actually seen Truth and fully known that that moral is correct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our view is subjective, erroneous, and always will be.

[Locke]

That's the thing. No one can ever know the absolute morals and be 100% sure. We can guess and analyze what might and probably is an absolute moral, but we can never can be definitely sure. People throughout the ages have made lists of what morals are *probably* within the realm of Truth, but they havn't actually seen Truth and fully known that that moral is correct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our view is subjective, erroneous, and always will be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't know that. All you know is that it isn't provable. You have no idea if it's discoverable.

[Adam007]

Absolute truths are as provable as the existence of a God. I'm not really fully understanding how an absolute truth could exist, unless it really was a set of divine laws. Do these hypothetical absolute truths apply only to our earth, or to everything in existence? To humans only? It sounds like absolute truths would have to be tied with religion because to believers of evolution, at one point we were primates. Primates are allowed to kill each other, but if absolute morals existed, at what point in our evolution were these divine truths imposed on us to follow? Absolute truths seem to have to be dependant on religion, unless that was painfully obvious.

[Rebdragon]

 

That's the thing. No one can ever know the absolute morals and be 100% sure. We can guess and analyze what might and probably is an absolute moral, but we can never can be definitely sure. People throughout the ages have made lists of what morals are *probably* within the realm of Truth, but they havn't actually seen Truth and fully known that that moral is correct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our view is subjective, erroneous, and always will be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't know that. All you know is that it isn't provable. You have no idea if it's discoverable.

 

 

 

So, if we discover an absolute truth (which I'm assuming we humans have on numerous occasions), do you think we'd know that it's an absolute truth, for sure? Or are you saying it's possible that we can never come across any of the absolute truths, if they exist?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think he means we can discover them but not prove they are absolute. Which does not mean absolutes do not exist (in his opinion).

 

 

 

'xactly my opinion.

[Satenza]

I think he means we can discover them but not prove they are absolute. Which does not mean absolutes do not exist (in his opinion).

[warri0r45]

I think he means we can discover them but not prove they are absolute. Which does not mean absolutes do not exist (in his opinion).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How could we actually even discover one? Perhaps one person would say 'yes! Thats definately one!' Where as another would say 'are you crazy?' Case in point: any possible absolute moral we 'discover' would have to be either incredibly blatant and obvious, which begs the question why didn't we discover it a long time ago? Or it would have to be handed down through an obvious spiritual encounter which no one could fake or twist as a conspiracy theory.

[Adam007]

 

I think he means we can discover them but not prove they are absolute. Which does not mean absolutes do not exist (in his opinion).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How could we actually even discover one? Perhaps one person would say 'yes! Thats definately one!' Where as another would say 'are you crazy?' Case in point: any possible absolute moral we 'discover' would have to be either incredibly blatant and obvious, which begs the question why didn't we discover it a long time ago? Or it would have to be handed down through an obvious spiritual encounter which no one could fake or twist as a conspiracy theory.

 

 

 

Wouldn't the commandments being given to Moses count as something like that, where he was given tablets of what are apparently absolute moral rules?

[warri0r45]

 

 

I think he means we can discover them but not prove they are absolute. Which does not mean absolutes do not exist (in his opinion).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How could we actually even discover one? Perhaps one person would say 'yes! Thats definately one!' Where as another would say 'are you crazy?' Case in point: any possible absolute moral we 'discover' would have to be either incredibly blatant and obvious, which begs the question why didn't we discover it a long time ago? Or it would have to be handed down through an obvious spiritual encounter which no one could fake or twist as a conspiracy theory.

 

 

 

Wouldn't the commandments being given to Moses count as something like that, where he was given tablets of what are apparently absolute moral rules?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem there is not everyone today believes in Christianity. Perhaps if there was some sort of spiritual revelation, there would be a off shoot bunch of skeptics years after the event as well. In other words, I think there could be no 'god given' absolutes unless god himself changes the very way we think.

[Rebdragon]

 

Wouldn't the commandments being given to Moses count as something like that, where he was given tablets of what are apparently absolute moral rules?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem there is not everyone today believes in Christianity. Perhaps if there was some sort of spiritual revelation, there would be a off shoot bunch of skeptics years after the event as well. In other words, I think there could be no 'god given' absolutes unless god himself changes the very way we think.

 

 

 

No, those are pretty much universal moral rules. The Ten Commandments would be one of those "documents" (or whatever, tablets) that contains the closest things to absolute morals that we can get.

[warri0r45]

 

 

Wouldn't the commandments being given to Moses count as something like that, where he was given tablets of what are apparently absolute moral rules?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem there is not everyone today believes in Christianity. Perhaps if there was some sort of spiritual revelation, there would be a off shoot bunch of skeptics years after the event as well. In other words, I think there could be no 'god given' absolutes unless god himself changes the very way we think.

 

 

 

No, those are pretty much universal moral rules. The Ten Commandments would be one of those "documents" (or whatever, tablets) that contains the closest things to absolute morals that we can get.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure, it's probably the closest thing, but the minority of the worlds population live thier lives by those 10 commandments. It's the best we have, but it's hardly universal.

[Rebdragon]

 

 

 

Wouldn't the commandments being given to Moses count as something like that, where he was given tablets of what are apparently absolute moral rules?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem there is not everyone today believes in Christianity. Perhaps if there was some sort of spiritual revelation, there would be a off shoot bunch of skeptics years after the event as well. In other words, I think there could be no 'god given' absolutes unless god himself changes the very way we think.

 

 

 

No, those are pretty much universal moral rules. The Ten Commandments would be one of those "documents" (or whatever, tablets) that contains the closest things to absolute morals that we can get.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure, it's probably the closest thing, but the minority of the worlds population live thier lives by those 10 commandments. It's the best we have, but it's hardly universal.

 

 

 

I'm not saying that everyone around the world follows the Ten Commandments, but that they follow basic moral rules, some of which are similiar or even nearly identical to the Ten Commandments. They may not follow some of the God related stuff, but the whole "love thy neighbor" and "thou shalt not kill" stuff is generally agreed upon throughout the world.

[Dalcyte]

 

interesting debaucle. Me and other people in my class were having this debate a while ago.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's the main thing you have to consider.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is absolutely NO way to prove that its wrong. You just simply can't prove it 100%. You can say its wrong because society says it is. But incest in our society is only wrong because society adopted that claim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a barbarian tribe for instance, incest is regularly practiced and not opposed. So why is it wrong there? Their society has simply adopted that because its the way their society works. Through hundreds of years we have had society's beliefs, morales, customs and ways instilled and drilled in our heads. But none, not one, 0, zilch, nada, are actually right. We would like to think they are, but there is no bonafide way to say they are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back to incest in general. I've heard many many claims that inbreeding causes genetic defects. This is wrong. THere is no proof of this and it just scientifically doesn't make sense. The chances of genetic problems are just as high. Having studied genetics thuroughly for half a semester pretty much, it just doesn't make sense. Half the DNA from mom, half from Dad. So what if they are alike, they actually could be 100% diffrerent due to the trillions and trillions of combinations. There is simply one, one major scientific problem with incest. That is that due to a likeness and similarity of genes, it could result in the death of a species. This is because the species will become so alike that there will be much much less differences and diversity, so if a change occurs, there will be no mutations or differences that survive it.

YES it does cause genetic defects, because the gene pool is small. That is why the monarchys of the 19th century were often mad and deformed, because they could only mary royalty they were all interelated, therefore inbreds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Err, this only occurs IF there is a genetic defect somewhere in the family. If the allele for Hemophilia (no blood clotting) is non-existant in the family, then no problems will occur. If H is the dominant allele, representing non-hemophiliacs, and h is the recessive allele representing hemophilia, then the allele pair Hh bred with another Hh, stands a 1/4 chance of having a hemophiliac child. But inbreeding can also kill off the gene, say these people breed and their child has the HH allele pair, then the gene is gone. For good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Probalby not easy to get if you haven't taken a few months of this, but simply put, incest is not necessarly genetically bad if bad traits are not in the family. But overall, there are some chances of problems occuring, but they are pretty much around the same as not in-breeding.

[warri0r45]

 

 

 

 

Wouldn't the commandments being given to Moses count as something like that, where he was given tablets of what are apparently absolute moral rules?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem there is not everyone today believes in Christianity. Perhaps if there was some sort of spiritual revelation, there would be a off shoot bunch of skeptics years after the event as well. In other words, I think there could be no 'god given' absolutes unless god himself changes the very way we think.

 

 

 

No, those are pretty much universal moral rules. The Ten Commandments would be one of those "documents" (or whatever, tablets) that contains the closest things to absolute morals that we can get.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure, it's probably the closest thing, but the minority of the worlds population live thier lives by those 10 commandments. It's the best we have, but it's hardly universal.

 

 

 

I'm not saying that everyone around the world follows the Ten Commandments, but that they follow basic moral rules, some of which are similiar or even nearly identical to the Ten Commandments. They may not follow some of the God related stuff, but the whole "love thy neighbor" and "thou shalt not kill" stuff is generally agreed upon throughout the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about (don't know the exact wording) 'thou shalt not take the lords name in vain' or 'thou shalt not worship any other god but me' Now as for the latter of the two, the majority of the worlds population ignore it. Feel free to correct my wording of these commandments.

[BlueLancer]

 

I disagree that it's absolutely necessary for a child to have a mother and a father.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you agree that generally, it is better for a child to have both a mother and a father?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mean, what would you rather have had as a child?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Biologically, it's more natural to have a mother and a father which I'd ideally hope for any child. Still, after seeing the results of having two parents of the same gender, I can't say it's hurting the children. You could think so, but get to know those families first. They don't have as many problems as you'd think just because of the parents' gender.

[Locke]

You all are missing the point entirely. Let me try and explain this better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Iff absolute morality exists, it exists independently of us having discovered it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Iff absolute morality exists, it exists independently of us believing it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Iff absolute morality exists, it exists independently of anyone being able to prove it exists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Example:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's say God created the world and he is the decider of morality. What he says is moral, is absolute, and it is not up for us silly humans to argue. Then, God says "Murder is absolutely immoral."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Down on Earth, God tells Joe that murder is immoral. Joe immediately understands and believes (because hey, if God tells you something, you're not going to argue) and decides to tell his neighbor Bob that murder is immoral. When Bob hears this, he responds by telling Joe that murder is not immoral. He then proves his point by killing his neighbor Steve. The only problem is we know God decided murder is absolutely immoral, and it is still immoral even though Bob doesn't believe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's say John has an epiphany independent of God talking to him, and believes murder is wrong. He might not have any reason to believe it, he can never prove it, but murder is still absolutely wrong because God said so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But what if George thinks differently? George has an epiphany that murder is not immoral at all. Does that make murder a relative moral? Of course not. Since murder is absolutely wrong, no matter what George thinks or says will change it. No matter what anyone thinks or says, it won't change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The point? If morality is in fact absolute, you can't prove it, but it could be discovered. You might not ever know. You might not ever choose to believe. But if morality is in fact absolute, it doesn't matter what you think or "know," it's absolute no matter what.