If "I agree that there is a cup" and "there is a cup" mean different things (which they do under some metaphysical systems) then it does (and so could be true) — Michael

Not necessarily.

"I agree that there is a cup" refers to assent to (someone's) factual statement "there is a cup".
"there isn't a cup" refers to a factual statement.

The former tells that not only do I think that there is a cup, but I also agree with someone over this - we share the same thought.

The statement is contradictory if "there is a cup" and "there isn't a cup" refer to the same object at the same place/time. So in this case, even if I grant that agreement and truth are different (agreement doesn't require to be based on truth, we can agree on something false, and truth doesn't require agreement to be true) it follows that the statement is contradictory - because agreement IMPLIES I think it is true - which contradicts the later part of the sentence where belief to the contrary is expressed.

Thus: "I agree that there is a cup" means what "there is a cup" does, and more.

My objection isn't due to nationalist pride, but due to a reasonable wariness of the sort of political power structure that you're endorsing. — Sapientia

Why are you wary of centralised power?

You say that "we" would become stronger, but who really is "we"? I don't think that "we" are, or should be, bureaucrats in very high up, powerful, positions of authority. I don't want a President of Europe. — Sapientia

Maybe you don't, but I do ;)

Lol joking. But if Europe was one country, we would be able to increase and regulate better our trade globally, bring more security to our people, and spur development and growth through all the current countries of Europe through more integrated collaboration.

Because I'm against the centralisation of power on that kind of scale. — Sapientia

Why?

Out of those countries, only Poland is a member state of the European Union and of NATO. And a threat isn't the same thing as a direct threat. But, yes, I'm not denying Russia's aggression, nor that it should be a cause for concern. And I'm glad that there have been sanctions. I just think that you're going overboard with the whole thing. — Sapientia

Are you serious? Don't you see how Putin is dividing Europe? What is he doing with Viktor Orban in Hungary? Why do you think he's getting in bed with him? That guy is a wanna-be dictator - he has severely restricted the freedom of the Press in Hungary already. Putin met with the Greek leaders as well, and has encouraged them to leave EU and join him based on receiving help with the Greek debt problems. He has encouraged conflicts among European nations. Why has he threatened all countries where missile shields are being built, including Poland and Romania (BOTH of which are NATO AND EU members)? Why have there recently been many signs that an invasion of Estonia (NATO member) is prepared? If UK exits EU, he'll be so happy - big party at Moscow that day!

It seems to me that many Western Europeans have no idea what is going on, on the Eastern front... this is exactly what a brilliant strategist and general like Putin needs. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the anti-EU voices in the UK are Russian agents ;)

Studies have shown that most people — swstephe

Serial Killers, and rapists of the like I mentioned above aren't most people. Most people would also regret killing someone and the like. Serial killers don't. What makes you think they'll act like most people? Scientifically you CANNOT draw this conclusion, there's not enough evidence, nor theory to support such a hypothesis.

o I'm guessing those people facing torture would say they repent and feel sorry even before you laid a finger on them. — swstephe

If they were normal, rational human beings, not cold-blooded, irrational serial killers, rapists, etc. yes.

It didn't work for the Inquisition, (and you will end up looking just as evil), why do you think it will work now? — swstephe

Maybe because they didn't punish serial killers, rapists and the like during the Inquisition but rather many innocent people? :s

Absolutely I disagree. And eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. — darthbarracuda

Yes but you don't understand. These people are beasts, they are worse than beasts. They deserve the harshest of punishments. It's not about an eye for an eye - these are not normal people. If they were normal, I would agree with you.

All your reasoning here shows is our insatiable desire for vengeance and a deep belief in blood debts. — darthbarracuda

This is interesting. Why would many of us, or let me not say many of us and assume, but rather I, why do you reckon I would feel good and joyful seeing such a criminal suffer? Please note that I would not feel joyful to see them suffer if they had felt genuinely sorry for what they had done. But if they felt joyful and happy for having committed such atrocious crimes, I would enjoy to see them suffer, and I would feel very angry to see them get away without suffering. So what is it that motivates this? Schopenhauer (from memory I'm recalling from Book IV of WWR Vol I, someone correct me if I'm not illustrating the thoughts rightly) thought that we seek to do justice (or vengence as you say) because we want to uphold justice itself, and when someone does something like this, and does not show fear of justice or remorse for their crimes, we automatically feel a need, coming from our very being, to set things straight, by ourselves if we have to, and thus uphold justice. If we do not uphold it, then everyone, including ourselves, is placed at risk of being unjustly treated because transcendentally, someone appears to have escaped justice. Thus such a crime is the greatest of crimes because it is transcendental in nature - it is, as per Christian theology, the unforgivable sin, the hardening of the heart that not even God can set straight anymore. And we cannot accept this, so our beings feels the urge to take matters in its own hands and give to such an individual what they deserve, ultimately in an effort of love - I think deep down I think that if they suffer horrendously, they will realise how it feels for others to suffer, and thus they would repent.

Well, damned if I know. According to the Agnus Dei, the "Lamb of god, takes away the sins of the world; have mercy on us". If there was no sin, mercy would not be called for. — Bitter Crank

Yes if there was no sin Jesus would never have died on the Cross.

If sin is separation from God, and Christ's atonement for the sins of the world reconciled man to god, then the effect of sin -- alienation from god -- is kaput. — Bitter Crank

A man cannot be reconciled with God unless they LIVE a life IN Christ. This means someone cannot go on sinning and living a life in Christ at the same time, lest at Judgement Jesus will tell them that he knew them not even if they come saying Lord Lord ;) . But the Christian life requires the community. It is only in the Church that the Christian can live in Christ and avoid sin. That is why, Christianity is inevitably tied to politics. A Christian requires a Christian society. The tools of the world - in this case peer pressure and social forms of pressure - need to be mobilised for Christian ends. At the moment they are still mobilised - but they are mobilised against the Christian, for the transexual, etc.

As for the Last Judgement, that hasn't happened yet, presumably. Once the Kingdom of God is inaugurated, and though we've been dead 10,000 years, we can get together and compare notes at that time. — Bitter Crank

Look forward to it :)

I prefer to think that man is essentially good, but quite flawed owing to his provenance, which interferes with the "better angels of his nature" God didn't create us by fiat; we descended from other species, and retain features of species long before us. — Bitter Crank

I don't think of any animals as having the capacity for evil. Why do you think animals have the capacity for evil?

I never did like the book of Revelations much. Along with some of the epistles, it should have been dropped into the shredder. — Bitter Crank

That was the first book I've read from the Bible. I think the Book of Revelations is essential - it's the only book where Jesus returns triumphant to banish and destroy all evil, and when Justice finally triumphs and reigns supreme, showing its full glory and power.

In 50 years we'll all be busy filling sandbags to hold back the rising oceans, and doing this at night because it will be too hot in the daytime. It will be too hot to be screwing around, with no air conditioning because all our energy will be devoted to carbon sequestration and running ER rooms to treat people for heat stroke.

I anticipate that global warming and it's attendant problems will resolve all of our moral issues, except the one of making the earth a pest hole. — Bitter Crank

I think the environmental issues won't be the problem - I don't really think we (YET) have the capacity to unbalance the Earth to that degree. The Earth has its own mechanisms, just like a living body, to adjust and safeguard itself. I think the moral issues are the more pressing and serious concern.

What about porn conventions, are they allowed? — csalisbury

Depends how they are organised. Organised the way many are today, probably not.

How'd the deception affect the relationship? — csalisbury

I broke up with her, although probably, looking back, or rather if I could live again, I wouldn't have. It was too harsh, and that's one of the things I regret. People have to be honest to themselves, and I'm not ashamed for having done wrong. Better to admit having done wrong than to deceive oneself ;)

By any chance, have you ever looked at a woman with carnal thoughts, possibly, just a little bit, just enough to incur divine wrath? Hmmmmm? Just the teensiest bit of lust in your heart? NO? Oh, come on! Even Jimmy Carter admitted to lusting in his heart. — Bitter Crank

I didn't claim to be a saint BC. There's a lot of differences between a saint and myself, and I'm nowhere close to being a saint. I merely claimed to be a decent human being. So yes, I have looked at, in fact, many women, with carnal thoughts and/or lust. I have probably not done this while I had a girlfriend though. I would generally avert my gaze from other women at those times. Is this sinful nevertheless? Yes! Should I not do this? Yes! Is it less sinful than outright adultery? Yes - because in the latter not only do you hurt yourself, you also hurt others. In the former, you only hurt yourself and your own mind. I would probably not do this if I lived among religious and saintly people - but I live surrounded by a culture which encourages lust and carnal thoughts, to the point it becomes almost an automatic reaction.

@Ciceronianus the White
Thanks for your informative response. A few questions/comments if you don't mind:

Those partnerships may be dissolved for most any reason, now, just as other partnerships. — Ciceronianus the White

Hmmm this depends though on the terms on which a partnership was founded. I'm not a lawyer, but having run my own business in the past, I know that many times it's not easy to terminate an existing contract. Would you not agree that the terms on which the partnership, in this case marriage, are founded, must determine when and in what conditions it can be dissolved?

It may cause pain or harm to a spouse or children, but I don't think it's the kind of pain or harm that merits the imposition of criminal penalties. — Ciceronianus the White

How does one legally differentiate the kind of pain that merits criminal penalties and the one that doesn't?

Civil remedies may be appropriate, however. — Ciceronianus the White

What civil remedies are you thinking of when you state this?

A religious institution may insist that marriage cannot be dissolved, that divorce is not allowed and except in limited circumstances and adultery a sin requiring punishment, but the law is no longer in the service of religious institutions. I think that's a good thing. — Ciceronianus the White

What if those are terms explicitly stated in the marriage agreement and agreed by both parties at the time of the marriage?

What kinds of porn are allowed in your republic? — csalisbury

All of them?

Are porn stars in your republic allowed to be married? — csalisbury

Not as long as they are active in their porn career.

Ever been cheated on? — csalisbury

Not really, just deceived, which came close to cheating though. Actual, proper cheating? Thank God, no.

Why doesn't it sound horrendous? If he did what he did, but he apologised in court, cried next to the victim's family, etc. then I would say no to torture. But the fact that he did what he did, and showed such defiance in the face of justice, and disregard for the suffering of others, this is a moral abomination of the highest degrees which deserves unimaginably severe punishment.

And raping someone when married does not constitute adultery. Adultery is mutual sex outside of marriage, and rape is rape, whether married or not. Different crimes. Rape is generally much worse than adultery in terms of wrongness.

because of the differences between the nations, and it could go badly wrong in various ways. — Sapientia

If people left their pride, then they would easily choose this option, as we would all become stronger.

And I disagree with it in principle, anyway. — Sapientia

With forming a USE? Why?

Let's not trigger another Cold War. And Russia hasn't done anything in recent years that has posed a serious direct threat to our borders. — Sapientia

Nooooo, they've only annexed Crimea, terrorised Ukraine, threatened to attack Poland for the anti-missile shield, etc.

And I say this while being one of the biggest admirers of Putin. I think he is quite possibly the only real political leader on the planet in this day and age. But he cares about his country and making it strong. We should do the same.

The brief crossing of airspace is either political posturing or has a reasonable explanation. — Sapientia

@jamalrob - I'm really starting to need an eye rolling emoticon, would this be possible pretty please? :D

Jesus didn't come to eliminate sin; he came to bring salvation from sin. Sin remains, but salvation was created to conquer sin. That's the story, isn't it? — Bitter Crank

In what sense has salvation conquered sin if sin remains? The whole purpose of Jesus's coming, which finishes with the Last Judgement at the Revelation is the destruction of sin and death.

I was raised as a Christian in a devout Christian home (Methodist). I have taken Christianity seriously for many years. I take it seriously, the same way I take the constitution seriously, but I do not now claim to be a Christian because I just don't believe god exists. I think Jesus was a real person, but I don't think he was the son of god. — Bitter Crank

Alright understood :)

If people weren't somewhat acquisitive (greed) — Bitter Crank

I don't think being acquisitive is greed. Greed is being acquisitive more than what is required for your well-being.

if they didn't have somewhat healthy egos (pride) — Bitter Crank

Self-esteem is not the same thing as pride. Pride, like the other sins, is an excess of something that is inherently good according to Catholic, Orthodox Christianities and Aristotelianism.

if they didn't have somewhat of a sex drive (lust) — Bitter Crank

Lust is again an excess. I won't mention the other sins you mention, because these simply qualify as excesses of things which are naturally good.

Maybe you're not crazy for holding such views (neuroticism is not the same thing as crazy), but when turned into policy such extreme views can cause a great deal of misery and harm — Bitter Crank

My views are actually not extreme compared to most periods in history, they actually do lean on the lenient side. If I was say a monarch, you would not be punished for being homosexual and for wanting to live with another man instead of a woman. Nor would transgender people be punished for seeking to change their sex. They would be provided counselling and therapy instead (Homosexuals, lesbians and so forth will probably be left alone - if a man wants to live with a man instead of a woman, nothing inherently wrong with that so long as it's done with decency, love and respect). Promiscuity would be discouraged (advertising which involves sexual references banned) and looked down upon, but not outlawed - no legal punishment would be entailed to promiscuous people (as this would probably lead to more suffering and confusion than anything else). Sex education in schools would also discourage promiscuity, and encourage long-term relationships. I would create state supported institutions to help people form and be in long-term relationships (some people really do have problems forming and sustaining long-term relationships, and they need help - and others get very sexually frustrated because getting married or getting into a long-term relationship can be complicated). Adultery would probably be outlawed, and treated with the same seriousness as murder - but again depends on the severity of it. Just as there can be more serious forms of murder, so there can be more serious forms of adultery. I think most people would be happier than they are now. Many, I would hope, would also be more decent human beings.

Oh yes, and I would put an end to Tinder, and the like :D
(also Ashley Madison... but I would leave the porn sites free though - which by the way BC most "extremists" would not ;) )

Why would you think such is extreme? Do you think expecting people to be decent and caring human beings is extreme?

And relatively few, merciful god, are as focussed on the alleged harm of sexual behavior as you are. — Bitter Crank

Yes, currently. In 50 years, this will probably change as the harm that unconstrained sex is causing is only growing and becoming more and more apparent.

Anyone who commits a sin once (everybody) will commit a sin again. — Bitter Crank

Disagreed. There is no necessity in this, even if you can treat it like a STATISTICAL law.

From a Christian perspective, there is no escape from sinning — Bitter Crank

Then Jesus came for nothing. Can you believe that while still calling yourself a Christian?

We may not commit the same cardinal sin (like murder) more than once, but your average venial and mortal sins are the bread and butter of the confessional. — Bitter Crank

Because of your hardness of heart, as Jesus said, not because this must be so.

In secular terms, people can not avoid sin because the definition of sin overlaps the core characteristics of human nature: pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth. — Bitter Crank

I, the depreciating and nihilistic Christian who thinks everyone is evil and corrupt, do not think these are core characteristics of human nature ;)

We are not masters of our own houses, as Sigmund Freud cogently observed. Insisting that we can, we shall, we will, and we must avoid your favorite sin, especially the one which is the uranium in the reactor of the human personality, is a wretched form of comfort. It's a gratuitously grim sort of damnation. — Bitter Crank

I disagree with Freud because it is simply not the case. There are many people, especially in history, if we exclude this age, for which sex was not the uranium in the reactor of the human personality...

Why is that? It is so because all human personalities are held together by the same flimsy ad hoc adaptations of our animal natures to our higher aspirations. — Bitter Crank

You know why? ;) Because they live in the same God-damn corrupt culture, that's why, and culture plays a more important role than beliefs one remembers every Sunday.

a stiff prick still has abysmal moral standards — Bitter Crank

Right, but he's not master of my house, is he master of yours? :p

The well regulated human has always recognized his and her needs, and has sought to satisfy them in a reasonable way, regardless of what the church preached (or they ended up miserable). — Bitter Crank

I don't think you quite understand what a need is. A need is something without which one simply cannot live, regardless of their will to live. Things such as air, food, sleep, excretion, etc. Can one live without sex? Yes. I can easily grant you that this is very very very difficult if you so desire (although I don't think it is). Thus sex is not a need, end of story. Also, do you think Saints (for one) were miserable?

Leaving behind the Christian model did not make them into barbarian heathens. — Bitter Crank

Are you sure? As I said, they're very good at the soft virtues, but nothing else. They may not be barbarians which take a bat and smash your head with it. But they are barbarians in all other ways.

They altered the milieu in which they live and have been able to find more human resolutions to their conflicts. — Bitter Crank

Oh really? That's why every night outside a nightclub there is some guy wanting to break a girl's head? Is that why? Is that also why the rate of divorce has gone up? Is that why the rate of depression and suicide is bigger in the US than in Nigeria?

Hence: homosexuals are not candidates for burning at the stake — Bitter Crank

They weren't except for some dark periods of the Middle Ages and Victorian ages. In Ancient Greece and Rome homos were quite cool people :) . We can conclude that for a large share of history homosexuals were NOT candidates for burning at the stake.

transexuals are not branded as abominations (your post excepted) — Bitter Crank

Well their actions certainly should be, because that's what they are, so this is unfortunate that in today's world we cannot even see how wrong trying to change your sex is.

women who are found in adultery no longer need fear stoning — Bitter Crank

Right, women who commit adultery today go like "Oh yeah but you ignored me for so long, I didn't feel loved anymore!!" (and then they wonder why the man broke their head :s ) They don't even see it is wrong. This is absolutely terrible, absolutely! At least in the past, because they feared it, they knew it was wrong. Now they don't. Many act as if it's their RIGHT to commit adultery if they don't like it anymore. That's just insane (not to mention uncaring, selfish, and virtually all the other vices). There's very few things more reprehensible than such an answer, and it deserves the same kind of punishment that a psychopath who kills and rapes a young girl, and then mercilessly feels proud and unapologetic of it in front of her family in court deserves. Such people deserve torture, and gnashing of teeth until they beg for mercy (in other words until they repent and feel sorry for what they have done). Same category of sin - the murdering rapist and the self-righteous adulterer. (actually this psychopath punishment thing - a good subject for a new thread, I'll open that soon - I'm curious what lawyers and people with law experience would think about torture being a punishment for such people).

except in certain barbarian regions like the Arabian Peninsula, in the lunatic Taliban controlled areas of Afghanistan, ISIS, etc. — Bitter Crank

I agree with Robert Pirsig (author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) when he said that the Taliban is correct in-so-far as they punish women for adultery, but they are wrong in-so-far as they don't permit moral mistakes ;) (and the possibility of moral excellence is more important and can't be sacrificed just to ensure no one gets hurt (from adultery in this case)).

The point that you've refused to address is why you believe that modification of appearance is a moral wrong — Hanover

It's not always wrong, it depends on what motivates it. I thought I was quite clear about it. If this is motivated by immoral desires, then yes, it is wrong. Same as sex - depends how and when it is done. Everything has its place.

It's obvious that women want to look nice (as do men) and that one reason for that is to be attractive to the opposite sex, but that is but one reason. — Hanover

It's one thing to want to look decent, and be an attractive/beautiful person, and a completely different thing to want to be an object of sexual desire. The former is normal, the latter is wrong.

Instead, you answered the question of whether you were opposed to young women who wanted larger breasts only in order to get fucked more often. To that, you were opposed, but that wasn't the question. — Hanover

Yes, and I've also added that I'm not opposed to surgery in the case of accidents, etc. I thought the two examples would clarify when I am opposed to them, and when I'm not.

Do you oppose women wearing dresses, high heels, make up, and coloring their hair? — Hanover

Depends for what occasion, whether it is vulgar (because sometimes it can be!), etc. But most of the time I don't, because dressing is quite often motivated by fashion trends (culture) rather than moral or immoral desires, and does not contribute to either morality or immorality. Although some of those girls going to Western nightclubs do in many cases dress so for the wrong reasons.

Are you opposed to people modifying their appearance generally, or are you really just opposed to men modifying their appearance to appear as women? — Hanover

The latter, because that is motivated by a perverse desire. If I dress in a woman for Halloween for example, nothing wrong - because that isn't motivated by a perverse desire that is contrary to my nature, but rather by a cultural desire.

You don't want it to be acceptable for men to wear skirts, unless it's a Scottish guy in a kilt, because that's a societal norm already, right? — Hanover

It depends on what motivates them to wear skirts. If they do so just for cultural reasons (the Scottish guy, or even a guy who admires Scotland), no problem. If they do it because they want to become women - bad.

At least in the Calvinist tradition, the condition of sin is a given: nobody avoids being mired in sin, and sin is sin, as you say. — Bitter Crank

This is TOTALLY not the case, even in Catholicism, but especially in Orthodox tradition. In Orthodox tradition man is inherently good - the Orthodox are actually quite lenient with sin, more lenient than is my liking. You can see this from Father Zossima's speeches in Brothers Karamazov!

The "bigger fish to fry" is pointed up in the terms of the Judgement in Matthew: I was hungry and you fed me, I was naked and you clothed me... I am sure you know the passage in the 25th chapter of Matthew. Jesus didn't say that entrance into the Kingdom was based on "a clean police record" so to speak. — Bitter Crank

Entrance into the Kingdom was certainly though not based on living in sin, including sexual sin. It is based on repentance, faith, coming to a life in Christ, love and grace. The instructions and parables reviewed in Matthew 25 cover ground which is summarised under love of neighbour and love of God, which are the two fundamental rules that Jesus gave earlier in Matthew 22. Sexual sin is against love of neighbour and love of God.

Yes, the Pharisees were trying to catch Jesus in the sin-trap. I don't think Jesus demonstrated brilliance in the legal department; rather, his approach transcended the legalistic approach. — Bitter Crank

The irony of it, I think, is that Jesus did not only transcend the legalistic approach, he even beat the Pharisees at their own game.

Dodging, dodging, dodging. Is there some reason you don't want to confess your religious background? — Bitter Crank

Not really, but what does this have to do with it?

I can't think of any way that a religion IS NOT a system. This is special pleading. Marxists, Baptists, Jews, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans et al are all products of a system of thinking. — Bitter Crank

I haven't said it's not a system. Rather that I am not the product of it. My family as I grew up has been largely not religious - it's rather that I insisted to pray, (I used to pray daily), but I've never seen my parents pray for example, until very late (I was 18+ already when I saw my mother pray or go to Church). We never went to Church, except for Easter, when it was tradition to go. The only thing vaguely religious that I remember was that when I was small my mother gave me a Bible for children with nice pictures, but that was all. God, apart from prayer, which I insisted to do myself, did not play a daily role in my life, or in my life within the community. I grew up in a largely secular culture as well, where sexual promiscuity and the like were givens for most people I have known. Most people, even my family, treat sexual promiscuity relatively lightly.

Funny story... At school, we had 1 hour of religion class a week. That was the first subject I was good at - I was initially terrible at everything else. My teacher at that time told my parents, I remember, that I have a very good natural moral intuition, that was lacking in other children, and that I knew what was the right thing even when I did the wrong (and in fact I quite often did the wrong ;) ). I was often used as an example for the other kids in class, and choosing what was wrong and what was right came easily to me. I remember my mother making fun of me "you're good at religion, but that is useless! What matters is mathematics, literature, history... these subjects" and I would, perhaps naively, answer "yes, but in Heaven that is the only thing that matters"

I didn't claim that most transsexuals were hermaphroditic. What I said was hermaphroditism is one form of actual "trans sexualism". Trans sexualism is a crowded box of postmodern sexual fluidity. — Bitter Crank

Very well, then I was not referring to hermaphrodites in my speeches (which are both sexes, rather than switching from their biological sex to another).

Well, according to Freud, we are all at least somewhat neurotic, even me and thee, and especially thee... well, let's not get started. — Bitter Crank

Where's the eye rolling emoticon please? >:O

I would say, instead, that that the problem is sexual conduct has become preeminent in today's world. — Ciceronianus the White

Agreed.

It is accorded a value exceeding its significance (which is nonetheless great). — Ciceronianus the White

Yes.

This is reflected not only in prevalence of the depiction of sexual conduct and desire in all media and the importance ascribed to being sexually active, but in the efforts made to condemn it — Ciceronianus the White

Really? Historically promiscuity has always been condemned to a certain degree or another no? Today, I feel that it is not condemned at all, but rather encouraged. Look at all ancient law codes - most of them had punishments for adultery for example. Do you think adultery should be legally punished? Why or why not? (I know you're a lawyer (are you not?) and so I'm curious what you think!)

In my opinion, it should not be condemned in and of itself. There's nothing inherently or a priori objectionable about having sex, though the consequences of it (the harm caused by it) may render it reprehensible. — Ciceronianus the White

I don't think there's anything wrong with sex itself as it exists. Some of the ways it's used though, are harmful, and hence reprehensible as you say. I don't think sex in-itself should ever be condemned by law (not speaking of adultery here, on which I'm unsure, but leaning towards condemning it).

You think that they're wrong unless engaged in for reproduction and ( or is it "or"?) physical and spiritual "intimacy." — Ciceronianus the White

I said two purposes, one physical, one spiritual. The spiritual one is intimacy. The physical one is reproduction. (the way I wrote it though, I understand your misunderstanding). I said failing to fulfil either one (in other words AT LEAST one) is guaranteed to be wrong and harmful. I gave the example of chewing food for the pleasure of it and then spitting it out instead of swallowing it. But of course, merely meeting the purposes of the activity does not guarantee it is moral (for example, once can meet the demand of reproduction through rape).

Maybe if enough of these lexit left-wingers left Europe, there would be room for all the refugees.
/s — darthbarracuda

Let's kick ehm out, let's kick ehm out! ;) (at least those refugees are conservatives! :p )

So, how are you going to vote, and why? Or, if that question doesn't apply, then how would you vote? — Sapientia

Britain has no chance to win the out vote :p . Some EU immigrants (who are Residents) can vote, and they will all vote against leaving. Historical Britain is fucked.

To be honest, Britain should not leave. We should form the United States of Europe, and become the next global superpower. That's the only chance we have against Russia, who is threatening our borders. If Europe unites, it will be stronger than the USA - then nobody will dare threaten us. Russia and the USA both want a divided Europe, because we would be too powerful if we are united.

I presume you are a product of one of the Orthodox branches of Christianity. — Bitter Crank

Only Marxists are products of systems ;)

Yours and the RC's formulations seem similar. I'm not raising that as a criticism; just noting it. (I'll raise it as a criticism at such time as you're being got ready to burn at the stake.) — Bitter Crank

:D go ahead, immortalise me! ;)

The hermaphrodite (a quaint old term for one kind of transsexual) is born with incomplete, or contradictory biology. — Bitter Crank

Most transexuals are not hermaphrodites, so this is a falsification of facts.
http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-transgender-and-hermaphrodite

Nature here is the guilty party. There is no normal body to violate. Changing the body (procedures not performed prior to WWII, as far as I know) is an effort to undo nature's error. The hermaphrodite isn't a woman trapped in a man's body, he/she is a mix of male and female body forms. — Bitter Crank

Yes but this is NOT the case for transexuals. A hermaphrodite is NOT a transexual, nor does a hermaphrodite become a transexual by surgery.

I don't know for sure (100%) whether most transsexuals are one gender trapped in the body of the opposite gender, or whether they are suffering from a complex delusion. — Bitter Crank

Fortunately many doctors do know.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/06/15145/

Are you opposed to breast and buttocks augmentation? Liposuction? Face lifts? Nose jobs? Organ transplants? Facial transplants? — Bitter Crank

Yes, when there's this young girl wanting a breast augmentation surgery because she thinks men don't fuck her because she has small breasts or some stupid reason like this, absolutely opposed (why would I not be opposed, does it seem to you that I want to license promiscuity and facilitate it? ;) ). When it is someone who has suffered an accident, etc. that's different.

If each of them were successful in obtaining an authentic body-spirit combo, it is also true that all of them were at least somewhat neurotic, quite apart from gender issues. — Bitter Crank

BINGO! They are suffering of mental illness. They need treatment, not accomodation and praise for being who they are.

He probably wouldn't make it through screening, even if he had worked up a good cover story. — Bitter Crank

Maybe in the US ;) .

At the close of this passage, Jesus says, "I am the light of the world." Presumably he had bigger fish to fry than every run of the mill sexual sin. — Bitter Crank

That's your presumption, which is clearly not the likely interpretation of the story given the rest of the Bible and teachings of Jesus and the context in which it happened. Sin is sin, whether sexual or otherwise - thus Jesus combatted all forms of sin, including the sexual. There is no "bigger fish to fry".

The challenge for Jesus in the passage, is that the Pharisees, as at other points in the Gospels, tried to catch him out - to show that he (1) does not know the Law, and (2) does not uphold the Law. As I have explained, they thought that there was no sensible answer that Jesus could give when put in that situation, and thus any answer he would give would disqualify himself and show that he isn't the Ha-Mashiach - something that they could use against him. If Jesus said "Let's stone her" he would break the law of Moses by showing partiality and justifying stoning just the woman, and not also the man involved in the adultery. If he had said "let her go", he would have licensed her sin, and thus also broken the Law of Moses. But Jesus outsmarted them, in a way that, with one stone, he hit multiple targets. First, he shames the Pharisees with his knowledge of the Law, and shows that they have sinned first by bringing only the woman to be judged, and are merely tempting him - they should also be judged if they want to judge her, because in trying to judge her, they too have sinned. Thus he avoids the first horn of the apparent dilemma "Neither do I condemn thee [to be stoned]". Second, he avoids the second horn of the dilemma through the next words: "and from now on sin no more", which acknowledges that adultery was a SIN and must not be repeated - the necessity of repentance. Third, he teaches all the people that repentance can and will result in forgiveness regardless of the gravity of the sin. Fourth, he shows how forgiveness can be used as a way to change someone forever. That woman was forever changed because in an impossible situation, she was forgiven. In truth, her FAITH saved her - she was alike Kierkegaard's knight of faith, who believed that she would be saved, despite KNOWING that she had sinned and deserved death. Fifth, he uses this as an opportunity to show people that "I am the light of the world [I am the guidance of the world - I am that which dispels the darkness [the confusion that the Pharisees tried to place him in]. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but have the light of life [even sinners like this woman]".

The problem with interpretations like yours, and most modern interpretations of Jesus, is that they discard parts of who Jesus was, mutilate him, and preferentially accept only a certain part. I've said we have become very good at the soft virtues - tolerance, forgiveness, etc. We all praise the Jesus who turns the other cheek. But what about the Jesus who took the whip and turned the tables on the money changers in the temple and drove them out in anger and by force? What about the Jesus who came not to bring peace on Earth, but a sword? What about the Jesus who came to divide father and son, etc? What about the Jesus who comes in glory during the Revelation crushing, and utterly destroying the forces of evil and immorality? That Jesus we don't like - we pretend he doesn't exist, and interpret him through our favorite prejudices - we are Pharisees. The point of Scripture, and the way truth is achieved in Scripture is by finding the most coherent interpretation, which can account for most of the facts. Not interpretations which require eliminating facts.

"The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican." Luke 18:11. KIng James version. — Ciceronianus the White

I do recall the parable; fortunately it is part of the Gospel of Luke, which I've read, took notes on every page and read many commentaries on in my self-study about 6-7 years ago (I've read the other Gospels apart from Mark too, but not in such detail). In that story, from memory, the Pharisee in question is contrasted to the outwardly sinful man, who sits far away from the altar, towards the entrance of the temple, and on his knees prays "Lord, forgive me my sins". The man is outwardly sinful, but his heart is pure because it thirsts for the Lord and regrets his sins, while the Pharisee, while outwardly clean, is inwardly sinful, because he does not perceive his need of God, nor does he regret his sins, rather he only takes pride in his righteousness. This relates to the other parable Jesus gave, of the cup which is outwardly clean, but inwardly dirty.

What the meaning of this parable is, is that inward sin (pride) is more dangerous than outward sin because one generally remains blind to it and hence cannot repent. That is why, paraphrasing, the prostitutes will enter the Kingdom before you, the Pharisees. In the culture of that time, outward sin was heavily punished, and everyone knew it was wrong. There was no question about the terribleness of adultery for example. But there was a risk - because often the people who had been immoral outwardly would be punished and disconsidered forever - given no chance to repent. Jesus encouraged them to repent, and showed that repenting will enable them to be forgiven through parables such as these. He also showed that it was wrong for others to demonise them, and not forgive them for their sins if and when they repented. This is not the case in today's world. In today's world, the problem is different - people do not know that adultery, etc. are wrong. Many see it as totally fine, so long as there is consent. These people are sinners, and they would be treated just as the Pharisee in the story, because their moral blindness prevents them from repenting.

This was, as you'll recall, a parable Jesus told to those who held themselves righteous and others in contempt for their failings. It seems a pertinent parable in these circumstances. — Ciceronianus the White

It was a warning to those who were proud for being superior to others, and were not interested in helping others become righteous as well. At the same time it was praise and encouragement for the man who has sinned, that he can and will find forgiveness so long as he repents.

It's interesting that according to the Gospels Jesus speaks merely of divorce and adultery. He says nothing about sexual conduct--the act of having sex. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes he does - numerous times about adultery, lusting, fornication, etc.

There is of course that bit about lusting in the heart being adultery, but even that doesn't address physical sexual conduct — Ciceronianus the White

Yes it does - it says that even if you avoid the physical sexual misconduct, you will still sin if you commit it in your mind (lust).

And as to adultery, let's not forget the woman caught in it, and his statement that those without sin should throw the first stone. — Ciceronianus the White

Jewish law states that both the woman and the man have to be stoned. Just the woman was brought to Jesus by the Pharisees (ask yourself why!). So the Pharisees tried to tempt Jesus because if he had said "kill her", he would have broken the law and been like them, partial and discriminating between the man and the woman, and if he had said "let her live", he would have licensed her behaviour. Instead what Jesus did was admit that what she did was wrong: "let them who have no sin throw the first stone" - but the stone had to be thrown. And he said let them who have no sin throw the first stone because in the act of bringing only HER the Pharisees had sinned - because they disrespected the law and treated the man and the woman differently. That's why he said they who have no sin - ie look at yourselves, you say that she has sinned? But what have you done when you attempt to punish her only?! Seeing that she regretted what she had done, he forgive her, and told her to go and sin no more (ie, DONT commit adultery again). Jesus in this way taught his disciples that by forgiving one's sins when they honestly and truly repent, they will learn to be better persons.

EDIT: I admit the explanation of this parable is complex (although it strikes as so clear once you find it!), and the parable at first made me meditate on it for long hours, not understanding the words of Jesus. But then I studied the Torah in this context, and realised how the Pharisees were actually tempting Jesus, and provoking him to break the law, and now Jesus's reaction makes perfect sense! It is amazing how complicated Scripture can sometimes be, people just don't realise. But try taking notes on every page and really understanding every sentence that is being said - it's just so rich!

EDIT2: Refer to Leviticus 20:10 for the Torah's law regarding adultery + punishments! :)

The concern about divorce and adultery seem a bit odd given the statement that those who leave their families and follow him will be rewarded. — Ciceronianus the White

No it's not odd at all. Leaving their family for the sake of God is right, because without God, nothing, not even their families, wives, children - nothing has any value. That's why "seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven, and ALL else shall be added unto you". I often replace God with virtue, and say that, virtue being that in virtue of which everything else is good for man (as Socrates said in Plato's Apologia) is first in line as a priority. Namely, if I have to sacrifice virtue in order to be with the woman I love, I cannot do that, for if I sacrifice virtue, than the woman I love herself will be worth nothing. So the only way to hold her value is to hold fast unto virtue, or God.

Apparently, abandonment is appropriate at least in some instances, although adultery and divorce generally are not. — Ciceronianus the White

Priority of values.

Regardless, it would seem Jesus didn't share your fascination with sexual activity and wasn't so eager to lecture those listening to him on its ills as you are to lecture us. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes he was - through the New Testament he took multiple occasions to teach about it, teaching against promiscuity, adultery, fornication and lust.

I think he may have had other things in mind beyond the sexual habits of humanity, which he considered more important. Sadly, many calling themselves Christians think of those sexual habits almost exclusively. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes of course he did. Sex isn't the only important thing in morality, BUT in today's world, it is SURELY the most neglected. We have become very good with the soft virtues - acceptance, tolerance, etc. and very bad with the hard virtue: courage, loyalty, integrity, etc.

I think the problems you refer to and so nobly promise to do your best to banish from the earth are caused by many things, not merely by the act of having sex — Ciceronianus the White

I don't disagree, but sexual misconduct is a major cause, and it is only becoming larger.

Some people may have sex only to reproduce and in order to have physical and spiritual intimacy and yet still be untrustworthy, jealous, vindictive, intolerant, cruel, confused, irresponsible, and even self-righteous. — Ciceronianus the White

Indeed. Then they will lose, in this life, all the rewards that their good sexual behaviour could have provided - although I doubt they could be intimate if they do not also trust, if they are not also caring, etc.

All these can cause a relationship or marriage to go sour, and many other things which don't involve sexual conduct. We hurt each other for many reasons. — Ciceronianus the White

Agreed.

Yes it is. That one ought not X is that one is obligated to not X.

And before we go 'round in circles arguing over definitions, I'll simply say that this is the definition of "ought" that I'm using in my argument. — Michael

Fine, then your definition of ought simply does not cover all the uses of the word ought in a moral context.

What does it mean to be metaphorically commanded to behave a certain way? And is that all moral obligation is? Poetry? — Michael

To be metaphorically commanded to eat when you are hungry for example, is that command which does not come from a person, but rather from one's own being/nature. Moral obligation is such a command from one's own being/nature. This has nothing to do with poetry :)

And it's metaphorical because one's own nature is not a person with a will who can command one to do something. But nevertheless, the person experiences the demands of his nature as commands.

Because that one ought not X just is that X is against some specified set of rules. — Michael

According to your limited definition yes, I'm just saying that there are other uses of one ought not X in moral discourse.

If it's a legal obligation then it's a set of legal rules. If it's a moral obligation then it's a set of moral rules. Therefore rule-free obligation makes no sense. — Michael

These are just your definitions.

And note that I'm talking about actual obligations, not your proposed metaphorical obligations (whatever they're supposed to be). — Michael

:s

(1) what the lesbian, homosexual, transsexual, etc. values are — Hanover

They are not the same "values", lesbian, homosexual, and transsexual. Transexualism is a moral abomination and is most definitely wrong. I'm not sure if homosexuality and lesbianism are wrong, although I do lean towards thinking they are morally wrong. Although, if they are, they are tiny vices, so long as promiscuity (the real vice) is not involved. Why is transexualism wrong? Simply because one does a harm to one's own nature by attempting to alter their own biology - the very desire is evidence of mental illness. A being strives for its self-preservation and flourishing - transsexualism is turning against one's own nature, thus it is equivalent to a moral abomination of high degree. And by this, I do not refer to the DESIRE or CURIOSITY to be the other sex - this in many cases is normal. What is abnormal is when one takes actual, real steps towards this.

(2) why they are harmful — Hanover

Because they are against one's own nature.
Because they encourage a culture of hypersexualisation

(3) how you intend to contain their harmful values — Hanover

Disallow chaotic, and disorganised protests and parades. Prevent publicity of sex-related issues, apart for educational purposes.

Implicit in your position is also the troublesome idea that gays, lesbians, and transsexuals are the products of environment as opposed to genetics. — Hanover

They are ALSO the product of environment, as well as of genetics. Nowhere in my position do I deny the role of genetics. Although, even if they are the product of genetics, that doesn't mean that their actions are not therefore immoral. A pyschopath is, according to many, the product of genetics. Does that mean that his actions are morally excuseable? Absolutely not. He has a harder road to climb than others - it is more difficult for him to be moral, but not impossible. He must be helped to become moral, rather than facilitated in his immorality and told that there is nothing wrong with what he does.

It would seem that if their behavior were caused by genetics, it would hardly matter what societal norms might dictate. — Hanover

This is not an excuse in and of itself. More is required. In the case of your eyes, there is nothing immoral about eye color, since eye color involves nothing of a moral nature in it.

By the same token, if we declare gays the norm, I'm pretty sure I'll remain straight, which means I really couldn't care any less what society says because it would have no meaningful impact. — Hanover

What if your son decided to be gay after he saw that this was what was required to be "the cool kid"? Or what if your daughter came to you "daddy, daddy I think I really am a guy, my spirit is that of a man..." because she was pressured into it by her friends?

At least admit to your actual position, which is that you find lesbians, homosexuals, transsexuals and the etcetera morally wrong and you want a society that considers them as such. — Hanover

Not THEM, but rather their actions. And again, remove lesbian/homosexual from that.

However, you also realize you've lost that battle and so you're content in allowing society to just absorb their nonsense as long as it doesn't affect you. — Hanover

No I don't actually. I think I, and the other good people, will win the battle in the next 50 years.

You believe it does affect you once it reaches the point where you can't point your finger and call them bad without ostracism — Hanover

No one should point a finger and call people bad, only their actions.

so you want to still be able to do that in peace, thus your nuanced position. — Hanover

Nope. I want a society with a strong culture, which encourages people towards the virtues, and makes the virtues respected and desired. Such a culture is the only culture which guides people towards the flourishing of human nature.

You are such a caring and loving soul, committed to consoling the broken hearted and nursing them back to health while properly chastising the wicked who lack your compassion.

It's hard to take you seriously. At least present your indignation in a credible way. — Hanover

:s

But I do care about sex — Ciceronianus the White

I didn't mention sex (an activity) but rather sexual conduct which refers to the way and manner in which the activity, sex, is conducted. Thanks for the additional information though.

I merely don't care about it in the remarkable manner you do. — Ciceronianus the White

What is remarkable about it?

You seem to think it's something to be avoided in all but certain, limited circumstances, rather as the Catholic Church and other institutions did and perhaps still do. — Ciceronianus the White

No, I think it's something that is aimed at fulfilling a two purposes, 1. reproduction, 2. intimacy (one physical, and one spiritual), and failure to fulfil at least one of the two purposes is a misuse of sex, just like, for example, chewing food, and then spitting it out without swallowing it so that you only feel the pleasurable taste is a moral abomination.

You think It's something sacred — Ciceronianus the White

If by sacred you mean that I think it ALSO has a spiritual purpose next to its physical purpose, then I agree.

Are you a priest, by the way? — Ciceronianus the White

No, and in my religion priests are allowed to marry by the way ;)

Most of us desire sex. — Ciceronianus the White

I disagree. However confusedly, most of us desire intimacy, and our desire for sex is just one of its many manifestations, being probably the highest intimacy achievable between two human beings.

The mere existence of desire hardly constitutes an obsession, however. — Ciceronianus the White

Exaggerated desire for something that doesn't deserve that desire is an obsession. In this case, people who desire sex, and are not able to identify that what they really desire through having sex is intimacy, they are obsessed.

I personally feel that love is something distinct from sexual activity. — Ciceronianus the White

Yeah, neighbourly love (caritas) :) . Eros is a different shade of love though, which presupposes caritas but is something more.

The people I love are, for the most part, people I haven't had sex with and would not have sex with. I don't think it's necessary to have sex with someone in order to love him/her. — Ciceronianus the White

Sure, in order to love (caritas) him, no sex is required, nor can sex be a reflection of such a love.

Neither do I think it's necessary to love someone in order to have sex. One is not a prerequisite of the other. For me, love has very little to do with sex. — Ciceronianus the White

Here is an equivocation. Caritas is not the only form of love. Eros is also a spiritual thirst and love for someone else - a desire for intimacy and union with another. Eros is what gives birth to the desire for sex, along with the desire for reproduction - although Eros is always the stronger.

Though sexual activity isn't a prerequisite to love or the equivalent of it, it is a matter of responsibility, as are other things which don't require the involvement of love. — Ciceronianus the White

Right, sexual activity is merely its effect :)

I don't presume to condemn others' sexual conduct, let alone maintain it should be regulated by the state — Ciceronianus the White

Where have I suggested it should be regulated by the state? :-s

which usually means that it is not consensual and so would cause harm — Ciceronianus the White

Sex can cause harm even if it is consensual, the same way that killing someone does cause harm even if it is consensual.

I don't think having sex in and of itself causes harm, nor do I think having sex is harmful even though if it offends your sensibilities. — Ciceronianus the White

It is harmful in-so-far as it prevents human flourishing.

You, though, obviously do condemn others' sexual conduct. — Ciceronianus the White

More like I'm against a certain culture rather than against any individual person.

I don't think that by doing so you evidence a concern for well being, and not simply because I don't think it's necessary to have sex in order to be well. — Ciceronianus the White

Here you are most wrong. I am concerned about sexual activity because many people have destroyed their own well-being through it, and many have been made to despair by it. I am just illustrating a way in which sex can contribute to well-being rather than destroy it, and in-so doing I am concerned about people's well being, in some cases, more than they themselves are, even though they may not realise it.

I think you're just being sanctimonious, Pharisee. — Ciceronianus the White

Very interesting that you call me a Pharisee, using Jesus' own language. How Jesus would find this - that you try to keep his wine bottles, but replace the wine. What a sly snake you are. Please cite to me the passage of the Bible where Jesus thinks that so long as sexual activity is consensual it is right, and the only moral question in sex is consent. Then we will see who the fucking Pharisee is. Go on. Common. I'm waiting. Let's hear it. Bring it. Bring it.

"Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house. But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul." - Proverbs 6:30-32.

"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" Matthew 19:3-9

Truth is you simply do not care about the millions and hundreds of millions of people who had their trust broken, who have decieved themselves about sex and have misused it and are now left alone, never having known true intimacy, who have used sex to hurt others and themselves, etc. You simply don't. For you, this is how life is, and you think it should be that way. Their suffering doesn't matter to you. Fine. But these people, as well as all other suffering people, do matter to me, and I will do my best to take care of them.

I don't know what the objectivist would say. There doesn't seem to be any sensible answer, which is why moral objectivism doesn't – and can't – work. — Michael

God and one's own nature, and ultimately, sub specie aeternitatis, the two aren't any different.

In what sense is morality obligatory and a command if talk of obligation and commands in this context is a category error? Your position seems to be affirming its own incoherency. — Michael

In a different meaning of obligation and command than was used. My nature, metaphorically, commands me and orients me towards its own fulfilment. But I have the freedom to go against it if I so desire. So in that regard, and in this sense, it commands me, even though, strictly speaking, it is not a person.

Perhaps, but I'm talking about the sort of rules that relate to obligations. — Michael

Okay noted.

No, I'd say that the premise is right, and that your premise that there are obligations sans-rules that is wrong. — Michael

Why?

The claim "one ought not X" has everything to do with obligation. It's the second word. — Michael

No, ought is not obligation.

Moral philosophers might agree that X is contrary to human flourishing but not agree that one ought not X. — Michael

Something is human nature only if it has a certain effect on what you do (dictates/influences what you do), and what you are oriented towards. Thus it is human nature that decides what you ought to do - that's precisely why it is one's NATURE. That murder is contrary to human flourishing means that human nature is not oriented towards murdering, and thus, when we speak of the immorality of murder, we simply mean to point out this fact. Someone who is immoral thus does something that is against their nature, and saying that they ought not to is just an affirmation that they indeed share that human nature.

One would have to make an additional case to argue that one ought not do that which is contrary to human flourishing. — Michael

What if, as I have said before, "one ought not to" simply MEANS "it is contrary to human flourishing"? I have claimed that this is a framework which isn't only better than the one you have offered (where "one ought not to" simply MEANS "it is against the rules"), but also includes it, although it isn't limited to it. Your criticism under my framework would simply be a step on the ladder to ascend higher, a moment of aufheben.

It's issued by a moral authority rather than a legal authority. — Michael

What counts as a moral authority? How do we identify moral authorities?

It's not clear to me that the distinction is. We're as free to break the law as we to break moral rules. Breaking the law makes you a criminal and breaking moral rules makes you immoral. — Michael

(for example, you can't be moral if you are forced to behave morally, but you can be a law abiding citizen if you are forced to obey the law). Again, morality is not obligatory in the same sense that laws are - and for this reason there is equivocation, even though this is not apparent until the concrete terms of ought are analysed. — Agustino

Furthermore, this sense of (moral) "obligation" that you're using isn't consistent with your account of "one ought not X" as "X is contrary to human flourishing". — Michael

I have offered no sense to it, I have merely illustrated that moral obligation simply cannot be similar to legal obligation.

How can human nature issue commands? This is a clear category error. — Michael

Exactly! It can't, so we can speak of obligations only metaphorically, not literarily. That is exactly the problem that I'm pointing to. "Obligations" (and "commands") is a poor language to use in discussing morality. In a certain sense morality is obligatory and a command - but that will not be the same sense in which the law is obligatory and a command.

Rules just are commands issued by someone who has the power to tell us what to do. — Michael

A narrow conception of rules. Rules is also used to refer to regularities, patterns, etc.

Rules aren't the sort of things that come pre-packaged with the universe or which spontaneously pop into existence some time after. — Michael

Laws of physics?

If "X is immoral" just means "one ought not X" then there is no sense of morality that does not involve rule-following as obligation without rules is incoherent. — Michael

Yes, fortunately it doesn't, that's been my whole point, this premise is wrong.

If, however, you want to define "X is immoral" as "X is contrary to human flourishing" then, yes, it would involve more than rule-following. However, the consequence of this is that prima facie this account would have nothing to do with obligation. — Michael

Why should morality have something to do with obligation, when we know that morality requires freedom for its possibility in a way that is incompatible with obligation in the hard sense of it (being forced to)? If someone is forced to, or even less, pressured to do something, then that action simply cannot be a moral achievement. Morality requires freely choosing the good - not under an obligation to choose it, which implies choosing it for a reason other than itself (ie because of the obligation), but rather for its own sake.

"One ought not X and there is no rule against X" appears to be a contradiction and so doesn't make any sense to me. — Michael

If someone asks you to show that this is a contradiction, you will offer a syllogism. How shall we decide on the soundness of the syllogism? A syllogism cannot tell us how to decide on the veracity of the premises. But what we can say, is that your conception of morality is limited to rule-following. That is fine - but all that I am saying is that morality has other facets, many of which do not involve rule-following. You seem to be unable to see this fact.

I will grant you though, that IF morality was mere rule (refering here only to the authority given ones)-following, in the absence of a personal God, there would be no objective morality. Thus far you seem to 1. presuppose the inexistence of a personal God, and 2. be unaware of the existence of different dimensions of morality. I would disagree on both assumptions, but discussing the second will evidently be more fruitful than discussing the former.

The first premise is read as "that one is [placeholder] obligated to not X is that there is a [placeholder] rule against X".

So, where the obligation is a moral obligation, "that one is morally obligated to not X is that there is a moral rule against X".

This isn't equivocation. — Michael

I disagree with moral obligations in the sense of legal, or [placeholder] obligations. Obligation simply does not have the same sense in the case of morality as it does in the case of law, or work, etc. because morality necessitates freedom as a ground of its possibility, in a way that law, work, etc. don't (for example, you can't be moral if you are forced to behave morally, but you can be a law abiding citizen if you are forced to obey the law). Again, morality is not obligatory in the same sense that laws are - and for this reason there is equivocation, even though this is not apparent until the concrete terms of ought are analysed.

Moral obligations are thus those established by moral rules issued by moral authorities. — Michael

What counts as a moral rule, as opposed to a legal rule?

The question, then, is can there be an objective moral authority? — Michael

Yes - human nature, I've already clarified that.

As stated in the original post, authority is a product of and dependent on human decision. — Michael

Rather man has the free will to move towards the flourishing of his own nature, or towards its own destruction.

I don't need to loosen it. If a thing breaks a legal rule then it's illegal. If it a thing breaks a moral rule then it's immoral. — Michael

Morality does not necessarily have to function by transcendent rules coming from external authorities. At the highest level, the "rules" (if you can even call them that - they are not rules in-so-far as they are freely chosen), are immanent.

You're using ought in two different senses - in a moral sense, and in a non-moral one, without establishing the connection and interchangeability of the two.

Furthermore, consider that your argument entails several additional difficulties. If not all obligations are moral obligations, by what are moral obligations distinguished from other obligations? And how would you draw the line between moral obligations and non-moral obligations? Because if you loosen your argument as you must, and claim that not everything that is against the rules is immoral, you will collapse your position into the investigation of what is morality - because we will no longer be able to identify immorality simply by it being against the rules.

1. That one oughty not X is that X is against the rulesy
2. That X is against the rulesy is that some authorityy has commanded that one not X
3. Therefore that one oughty not X is that some authorityy has commanded that one not X
4. That X is immoral is that one oughtmoral not X
5. Therefore that X is immoral is that some authoritymoral has commanded that one not X — Michael

Equivocation of ought, as I said before.

So I don't understand what more you're looking for. I showed that your initial argument is false via a reductio ad absurdum, as well as that your first premise is wrong, because that simply is not what is meant by ought, which refers to ethical injunctions which in turn have nothing to do with rules. Furthermore, I also provided an additional separate account of what morality and ought is and means.

If it's sound then the conclusion can't be false. — Michael

Where have I said it is sound? I have said that regardless of the veracity of the first small argument, the big one is necessarily false because of the conclusions it entails. This does not indicate that I thought the small argument is sound. Not at all, because the first premise, as I have said multiple times, is false.

I'm not saying that every obligation is a moral obligation. — Michael

That one ought not X is that X is against the rules — Michael

That X is immoral is that one ought not X — Michael

Thus: "one ought not X" (A) = "X is against the rules" (B) = "X is immoral" (C). If every A is a B, and every C is an A, it necessarily means that every C is also a B.

Yes and this argument has absurd conclusions, namely that starting a sentence with lower case letters is immoral. Therefore it is false.

No, it's a single argument on its own:

That one ought not X is that X is against the rules
That X is against the rules is that some authority has commanded that one not X
Therefore that one ought not X is that some authority has commanded that one not X — Michael

Yes, fine. But your big argument has still been reduced to absurdity, regardless of the veracity of this bit of it alone.

ob·li·ga·tion
ˌäbləˈɡāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: obligation; plural noun: obligations
an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment. — Michael

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obligation

I can use a dictionary too! :) (although I thought pace Wittgenstein that meaning is use, not dictionary definitions :p ) If you refer to the first definition provided, which is the most frequent one unless you are a Kantian (a minority position in ethics today).

So when you claim "murder is immoral" you're just claiming "murder is contrary to the flourishing of human nature". OK. So what? I accept that murder is contrary to the flourishing of human nature. What's the consequence/implication of this? That I ought not murder? — Michael

Yes, that is the consequence of it.

1. Murder is contrary to the flourishing of human nature.
2. You share in human nature
3. Murder is contrary to your nature in-so-far as you share in human nature, which is exactly what "you ought not to murder" means.

As I said, I didn't bring up morality until point 6. But you questioned point 1. Consider the first three points as a standalone argument. — Michael

That is impossible because they form one single argument. So it's a reductio ad absurdum if I can show that your argument entails nonsensical conclusions such that starting sentences with lower case letters is immoral.

Every obligation is a choice. Legal obligations, family obligations, work obligations... — Michael

This is an equivocation on previous usage. Obligation is something you are OBLIGED (ie FORCED in some way, or pressured to do) to do.

So you agree that if there is no rule then there is no obligation. — Michael

In the sense of obligation I have illustrated above yes.

And as you've accepted that "X is immoral" means "one ought not X" you agree that if there is no rule then "one ought not X" is false. — Michael

Nope. I don't agree because "one ought not X" =/ "X is against the rules"

No. If there is no rule against it then nothing can make the claim "you ought not kill animals for fun" true. — Michael

Yes there is. Your own nature.

So "one ought not kill animals for fun" means "killing animals for fun is contrary to the flourishing of human nature"? — Michael

Yes. It has to do with the transhuman part of man - since man is not a self-sustaining substance, he depends for his existence on the rest of the world, and even on the animals. Thus cruelty towards the world and towards the animals is against his own nature - it is like sitting on a branch and cutting that same branch - simply because the world is the cause of the man, who is merely the effect.

I'm not saying that it's an ethical question. I'm saying that the claim "one ought not X" is the same as the claim "X is against the rules". — Michael

That X is immoral is that one ought not X — Michael

That one ought not X is that X is against the rules — Michael

:-*

But it is still nonetheless the case that where there are obligations there are rules. — Michael

I agree, but morality is a choice not an obligation in the sense you use it here. That's why morality depends on freedom.

If there is no rule against killing animals for fun in the African jungle then there is no obligation not to kill animals for fun in the African jungle. — Michael

Agreed. What does this have to do with the morality of it though?

The only thing that can justify the claim "one ought not X" is if there is some rule which commands one to not X. — Michael

No. Because you still ought not to kill the animals for fun even if there is no rule against it, even if you are not obliged/forced not to kill them.

So "one ought not X" means "X is contrary to the flourishing of human nature"? — Michael

Yes - but keep in mind that human nature is transhuman as well as merely human.

We can either say "you ought not move a pawn backwards" or "it is against the rules to move a pawn backwards". The two claims are interchangeable. Therefore that one ought not X is that X is against the rules. — Michael

Nope. The way you use ought here equivocates on the earlier usage. This is not an ETHICAL question regarding the pawn, unless you want to say that I am immoral if I move the pawn backwards ;) - which is just crass nonsense.

You ought not start a sentence with a lower case letter. It is against the rules to start a sentence with a lower case letter. — Michael

Right, so I am immoral if I start a sentence with a lower case letter? What kind of crass nonsense is this? I think Wittgenstein would be horrified if he saw this misuse of his philosophy...

I don't need a correct account to see yours is wrong. — The Great Whatever

Epic!

Could you give an example? I can't see how this would work. "One ought not X and there is no rule against X" appears to be a contradiction and so doesn't make any sense to me. — Michael

You ought not to kill animals for fun in the African jungle. There is no rule against killing animals in some places in Africa. There's your example.

Can you provide an alternative account of what "one ought not X" means? The above is the only meaningful account that I can find. — Michael

Ought not to refers to actions which are contrary to the flourishing of human nature or the nature of other living beings (I could have just said the first part, it would be the same thing, but just to avoid misunderstanding)

Ok, thanks, that's what I was looking for - the wherefore of your vehemence. I agree that intimacy and loyalty are important and ought be cultivated. — csalisbury

;)

That one ought not X is that X is against the rules — Michael

Nope, unless you alter the usual useage of the word "rule". At the moment premise 2 is ENTAILED by premise 1, even though you don't make this necessary connection clear - and thus it isn't separate from it. "Rule" presupposes a rule giver in the usual sense in which we use the word, ie something is a rule if and only if it has been given by a person. But a rule against action X does not necessarily mean that one ought not to do action X. For example, if I'm a Jewish slave in a Nazi concentration camp, and a Nazi guard instructs me not to eat anymore, then it does not follow that I ought not to eat (a statement of ethics). All that follows is that he doesn't want me to eat - it says nothing about what I ought to do.

That X is against the rules is that some authority has commanded that one not X
Therefore that one ought not X is that some authority has commanded that one not X — Michael

This is inherent in our usage of rule.

That so-and-so is an authority and has commanded that one not X is a product of and dependent on human decision
Therefore that one ought not X is a product of and dependent on human decision — Michael

This is begging the question. The conclusion is derived from a single premise, and thus inheres in it. Your argument begs the question here.

That X is immoral is that one ought not X — Michael

I agree.

Therefore that X is immoral is a product of and dependent on human decision — Michael

The way you have stated this argument, this does not even follow without error because you beg the question half-way in regards to your second, intermediary conclusion. If we were to state the argument in a different manner it would follow, granted the premises, but premise 1 would still be false under the meaning of rule used in premise 2. The only way to make premise 1 true while keeping premise 2 would be to equivocate on "rule" or change the meaning of authority and command. For example, it can be established as a rule (= something that follows with regularity) that if I develop friendships I will be happier than if I was entirely isolated. Given my nature, it would follow that I ought to develop friendships, and I ought not to be isolated. In a certain sense an authority has commanded me to do this - but it is the authority of my own nature - it is immanent and not transcendent, contrary to your unspoken of assumption that authority necessarily is external and contrary to your assumption that authority is always personal. That's why writers like Philippa Foot can develop entirely objective, although secular ethics.

Of course Ciceronianus cares about the well being of others, in the same way that Mrs. Campbell did:

Reply to a young actress who asserted that an older actor in a production showed too much affection for the leading man (c. 1910); as reported by Alan Dent in Mrs. Patrick Campbell, p. 78 (1961).
"My dear, I don't care what they do, so long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses."


At a time, Agustino, when there were many horses on the street, "frightening the horses" could have dire consequences. It was in the sense of not wanting to cause a stampede of angst-ridden horses that Ciceronianus was speaking.

Just imagine, two men kissing on Broadway in 1910, watched by a pair of stallions pulling a fancy coach, and the two large studs taking off to find some place to do horse-likewise, and igniting a stampede down the Great White Way. Why, hundreds of important people attending the theater might be hurt! — Bitter Crank

LOL - not a bad explanation ;)

Lies lies lies... my comment makes sense so long as sexual conduct affects well-being; it does not have to be equivalent to well-being contrary to your misreading of my comments. You don't care about the well-being of people, because you don't care about at least one factor which affects it. In fact, if you had bothered to read my reply in context, you would have realised that your misrepresentation makes no sense. To wit:

Desire for sex in and of itself, if by that we understand the physical act, is an obsession because sex in and of itself does not deserve that attachement and/or love. — Agustino

I don't care how adults choose to disport themselves sexually, or with whom they do so, provided their frolic is consensual. — Ciceronianus the White

Then you don't care about the well-being of others, pure and simple. Consent is not sufficient to make something moral/virtuous/ethical - in fact it has no necessary tie to morality at all. For example, if I gain someone's consent to kill them, does it follow that I should? Clearly not.

As to the bad argument equally applying to a pro-gay parade position - well, obviously. Any position has the potential to be poorly defended with bad arguments of that type. That's why I don't make those kinds of arguments to defend my positions. — csalisbury

No. You fail to realise that the so called poor argument I put forward is sound - there's nothing poor about it, even in the uninformative way you wrote it out.

Of course you can infer that I'm probably pro gay-parade (which I am, though I personally don't enjoy parades, because they manage to be loud and boring at the same time) — csalisbury

Obviously.

First, in some yet-to-be-explained way, they contribute to a burgeoning social evil that threatens social order. — csalisbury

Sexual promiscuity, including parades involving sex-related promotion, is a social evil because 1. it confuses individuals about the means and purposes of sexual activity, 2. it promotes conflict, jealousies, and so forth among people, 3. it threatens the stability of committed relationships and encourages people to treat each other as means to an end, instead of as ends in themselves, 4. it destroys intimacy by making it public. And I could go on.

Second, they're part of a concerted campaign to make cisgendered heterosexuality a minority position. — csalisbury

No, they're just encouraging a minority position to become more widespread, and thus threaten social stability and sexual morality.

Yeah, 'obsession' over anything is harmful.& I've never met anyone as obsessed with sexual mores as you :P — csalisbury

Obsession with justice, truth, virtue, etc. is called love. Obsession has a negative connotation, and it refers to the situation where someone loves or is attached to something that does not deserve that love and/or attachment. Morality deserves love and attachment. Desire for sex in and of itself, if by that we understand the physical act, is an obsession because sex in and of itself does not deserve that attachement and/or love.

Obviously these analogies don't hold up as well against someone who's against LGBT parades because they're against LGBT values — csalisbury

No I'm not against LGBT "values". I'm for maintaining social order and a healthy morality. That particular person X is lesbian, homosexual, transexual, etc. is not a problem to society, it's their freedom to be as they wish. It only becomes a problem when this seeks to become a social NORM or STANDARD. My issue is to ensure that this is contained as a minority position, and not allowed to spread through society, something that I claim is harmful.

Your argument is that LGBT parades are bad because LGBT values are bad. It's an argument in form but all it boils down to is that you don't like hypersexualization, your opinion.

Things that affirm LGBT values are bad
LGBT parades affirm LGBT values.
Therefore LGBT parades are bad.

lol — csalisbury

Ok you finally discovered that arguments cannot help us choose the right/correct premises (and by the way, this wouldn't be the way I'd state the argument, it's a strawman of my position but regardless), and some other practice is needed. This is good, but all I'll say for now is that it equally applies to your position!

Stating that one deals with private matters and one deals with public matters is simply to state, once more, that you don't like LGBT values. — csalisbury

No, it absolutely is not. That sex is a private matter (and hence doesn't belong in the public sphere) is a separate issue from LGBT values. It's a premise for an argument against gay parades (among other things - it's also an argument against many forms of advertising for example). You may disagree with the premise, which is fine, but then you need to put forward an argument or reasons for disagreement.

LGBT values, as I'm sure you aware, include being able to express one's sexual identity publically without fear of recrimination. That's like the core value. — csalisbury

That's a position that applies across the board to progressives regarding sexual matters, not just LGBT. It is one of the core progressive "values" to be able to express PUBLICLY your sexual identity - something that I think is nonsense. Sex ought to be a private, not a public affair, simply because over-sexualisation, and sexual obsession are socially and personally harmful.

So, again, I'm not sure what the substance of your post is other that you don't like gay parades and people who have the gall to not want to be shamed for wearing short dresses. — csalisbury

The substance of my post has nothing to do with whether I like or I don't like gay parades or anti slut-shaming parades. The substance of my post has to do with the fact that I think both of those are social evils that should not occur. This combines with my belief that every particular person should be free to do as they wish regarding their sexual behaviour BUT nevertheless, there are social norms that should be maintained.

You're certainly free to have that opinion, but if you want to persuade others to share it, you have to do more than simply express it. — csalisbury

Persuading others has little to do with argument and reason in this case, and a lot with moving their emotions and wills - why? Because as you have identified, we are disagreeing over how to choose our premises...

If your jam is shaming sluts, I guess that's how it is. Hope you get some good shaming in this week. — csalisbury

Why do you assume this? What part of my writing states that I think someone should spend their time shaming sluts, etc.?

But why would I - or anyone - care at all whether you're for or against hypersexualization? (Plus, I think everyone on here is already well aware you got a thing about sex) — csalisbury

Maybe because 1. it answers your question regarding gay parades, and 2. also shows how the analogy with patriotism is a false analogy?

The idea is to make arguments. Sorry Agustino, but you're not interesting enough for your opinions to be inherently interesting. — csalisbury

That is an argument, but it seems you wouldn't know one if you saw one. It's an argument showing that the analogy you made is false, and therefore misses the point. I can spell it out in premises and conclusion if you need that :)