Immoral Relativism

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

A neat test, [/quote]

Hey, Thunder. Thanks. I was hoping you’d drop by.

If morality derives from belief systems, then what’s the difference?

I think that everyone except the psychopath and the sociopath recognizes an evil act when he sees it.

However, as even the limited number of posts on this thread (the responses of which have surprised me not at all) have shown, we don’t all agree on what constitutes an evil act.

Or at least (and back to the point of this thread), we don’t all agree on the relative evil of each act.

22

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
May I humbly ask you, thunderbolt, why it is that when a lonely shepard fucks some sheep, he is commiting a crime as serious as murder?[/quote]

Perhaps it’s because the sheep did not expressly give their consent, therefore it would be an act of rape, which Thunder does rank as seriously as murder.

23

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Hey, Thunder. Thanks. I was hoping you’d drop by.[/quote]

Varq, I always try to drop by your threads - always a pleasure.

I am not sure morality derives from belief systems so much that belief systems are trying to figure out what morality is. That sounds like a sophistic distinction, but I think it is an important one - morality doesn’t necessarily emerge from systems so much as the systems are attempting to discern a transcendental morality.

Top down versus bottom up? Maybe that way explains it better.

I think that is my point, actually - first, the fact that we can generally agree on some baselines demonstrate there is a universality in play.

[quote]However, as even the limited number of posts on this thread (the responses of which have surprised me not at all) have shown, we don’t all agree on what constitutes an evil act.

Or at least (and back to the point of this thread), we don’t all agree on the relative evil of each act.[/quote]

Very true, but I don’t think that our collective disagreement represents “proof” that the various evils are relative necessarily - that would only be true if we were all equally right. I don’t believe that to be true - and probably most no one else does either, if they be honest.

Our inability to agree on the measure of a given evil, in my view, is proof only that understanding moral truth is really, really hard and requires a lot of hard thinking - but that it isn’t truly relative.

24

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Perhaps it’s because the sheep did not expressly give their consent, therefore it would be an act of rape, which Thunder does rank as seriously as murder.[/quote]

C’mon - that twinkle in the ewe’s eye? She was bleating for it.

25

But then again, you can OWN sheep, hell, you can even SLAUGHTER and EAT them, it is actually expected! So a little rape should be OK, n’est-ce pas?

26

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
But then again, you can OWN sheep, hell, you can even SLAUGHTER and EAT them, it is actually expected! So a little rape should be OK, n’est-ce pas?[/quote]

Only in an attempt to distract while branding.

27

On a sidenote: Is/was there a civilization on this curious little planet, where animal husbandry was done solely for sexy purposes, and where slaughtering and eating the beast’s meat would have been considered morally outrageous? I mean, perhaps they even had this kind of conversation, thought of this very question, just vice versa?

(“Can you imagine, he then proceeded to roast the dead parts of Lucy -poor Lucy- over the fire and put them afterwards in his mouth. I even think he swallowed a little bit of it, that fucking pervert…”)

28

Smoking tobacco- 36

Murder- 15. I know murder is bad, but sometimes, to me, killing is justified in one way or another. You shot my brother? Rape my wife? I kill you. Not nearly as evil as getting shot and killed in Newark because it’s gang initiation time.

Eating pork- 36. Gross, but whatever floats your boat.

Littering- 15.

Forced sexual intercourse (rape)-1

Prostitution- 25

Smoking marijuana-36

Anal sex (male-female)- 36. I’m all about it.

Driving while intoxicated- 5, even though I’ve been guilty of it.

Sexual intercourse with an animal- 36

Copyright infringement- 1 (I’m a writer.)

Curling in the squat rack- 20

Consensual sex between adult siblings- 35. gross, but whatever.

Voting Republican- 1 worse than murder.

Sexual intercourse with a minor- 20. situational. Am I 19 and she’s 17?

Shooting heroin-36

Child prostitution- 1

Libel and slander- 15

Drinking alcohol- 36 (c’mon man.)

Oral sex (male-female)- 36. All about it.

Voting Democrat- 5. Only a sin in recent times.

Consensual sex between adult 1st cousins- 36. Gross, but whatever.

Chewing gum- 36

Producing or viewing pornography- 36. (again, I’m all about it.)

Oral sex (female-female)- 36. God’s greatest invention.

Robbery and theft- 10

Masturbating- 36

Consensual sex between an adult and his/her parent- 36. Horrificly gross, but consent is consent. None of my business.

Sacrilege and blasphemy- 36 (all about it.)

Taking Ecstasy- 36

Anal sex (male-male)- 36. Horrificly gross, but whatever.

Producing or viewing child pornography- 2

Oral sex (male-male)- 36 Horifically gross.

Using a Bosu ball- 36 see above.

Snorting cocaine- 36

Gambling- 36

29

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
On a sidenote: Is/was there a civilization on this curious little planet, where animal husbandry was done solely for sexy purposes, and where slaughtering and eating the beast’s meat would have been considered morally outrageous? I mean, perhaps they even had this kind of conversation, thought of this very question, just vice versa?

(“Can you imagine, he then proceeded to roast the dead parts of Lucy -poor Lucy- over the fire and put them afterwards in his mouth. I even think he swallowed a little bit of it, that fucking pervert…”)[/quote]

Well bestiality is legal in Sweden, Denmark, and Holland i believe, as long as the animal is not harmed. I can’t find the actual legislation in English, could some Swedes, Danes or Dutch members help? How does this law actually operate?

30

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Drinking alcohol- 36 (c’mon man.)

[/quote]

Ha!

Yeah, I put that one in for you, brother. :wink:

31

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:

Perhaps it’s because the sheep did not expressly give their consent, therefore it would be an act of rape, which Thunder does rank as seriously as murder.

C’mon - that twinkle in the ewe’s eye? She was bleating for it.

[/quote]

Especially when they’ve been sheared and they’re showing off their stuff hehehe…that’s just wrong.Who could resist?

Beeeeeeee yourself

33

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
But then again, you can OWN sheep, hell, you can even SLAUGHTER and EAT them, it is actually expected! So a little rape should be OK, n’est-ce pas?[/quote]

Issues?

34

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Who is to tell someone else how they should or shouldn’t behave?

Society for one.
[/quote]
Society does not act. Individuals within society interact. Society is nothing more than concerted human cooperation in which individuals are free to act an make contracts as they see fit.

In a free society there are no laws against personal behavior that don’t involve crimes against life, liberty, and property. No other individual has the right to tell another individual what to do or how to do it. Individuals and groups of individuals may have the force to compel action but that is coercion and thus it is immoral.

35

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
In a free society there are no laws against personal behavior that don’t involve crimes against life, liberty, and property. …[/quote]

Name one crime that doesn’t. Most of the “victimless” crimes either directly or indirectly involve on of those issues. Property values is the first thing that comes to mind and is impacted by prostitution, drugs etc.

36

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
In a free society there are no laws against personal behavior that don’t involve crimes against life, liberty, and property. …

Name one crime that doesn’t. Most of the “victimless” crimes either directly or indirectly involve on of those issues. Property values is the first thing that comes to mind and is impacted by prostitution, drugs etc.

[/quote]

Tragic of the commons.

The cost of socialising streets, not of drugs or prostitution.

Except of course if someone squanders his money on drugs and hookers, which is entirely his business.

37

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
In a free society there are no laws against personal behavior that don’t involve crimes against life, liberty, and property. …

Name one crime that doesn’t. Most of the “victimless” crimes either directly or indirectly involve on of those issues. Property values is the first thing that comes to mind and is impacted by prostitution, drugs etc.

[/quote]

You can also not add the costs of prohibition on top of prostitution and drug costs.

If drugs were sold in pharmacies they would be cheap, clean and there would be no crime related to this business.

Or when was the last time the Johny Walker gang had a drive by to make the Hennesy guys flee from your block?

Or the Pfizer boys targetting the Bayer mob?

In other words to add the cost of enormously stupid and immoral crime fighting measures to the costs of crime is intellectually lazy at best and an attempt to mislead at worst.

38

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Name one crime that doesn’t. Most of the “victimless” crimes either directly or indirectly involve on of those issues. Property values is the first thing that comes to mind and is impacted by prostitution, drugs etc. [/quote]

How’s smoking weed involved in these “issues”?

39

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Name one crime that doesn’t. Most of the “victimless” crimes either directly or indirectly involve on of those issues. Property values is the first thing that comes to mind and is impacted by prostitution, drugs etc.

How’s smoking weed involved in these “issues”?[/quote]

Tell me how it does not impact people lives or property. Those are Lift’s qualifications.

40

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
In a free society there are no laws against personal behavior that don’t involve crimes against life, liberty, and property. …

Name one crime that doesn’t. Most of the “victimless” crimes either directly or indirectly involve on of those issues. Property values is the first thing that comes to mind and is impacted by prostitution, drugs etc.

[/quote]
Smoking pot (in the premise of one’s own domain) is a victimless crime. Not wearing a seatbelt is a victimless crime. Prostitution is a victimless crime. I could go on ad infinitum.

Property value is only affected by prostitution where it is illegal. Ask an Amsterdamer how prostitution affects property values: quite nicely, in fact. The prostitution business actually makes real estate more valuable in such areas because it allows individuals to capitalize on personal property.

Just because you may not want to live near a red light district doesn’t mean everyone doesn’t. Value is subjective and all individuals value things differently – hence the point of this thread.