Considering the legal framework for abortion

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hey you
How would you ever reach that conclusion? The product of religious moral and ethic values must always be dismissed when it clashes with the secularly established principles at the basis of laws and rights.

I missed this.

Interesting.

If ethical and religious values cannot be used to ground law, what can?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Look a little closer: I think Nowake is of the opinion that religion must not influence (secular) law, and therefore that only secular ethics should be considered.

[Vuk]

Yes, quite.

Vuk, unlike you I consider killing another human being to be always wrong, and never justifiable. The simple, and quite terrifying, fact is that neither Hitler nor his supporters believed what they were doing was evil. If they had they would not have acted as they did. Once you recognize that you have to recognize that resorting to homicide to stop them represents a failure on your part, not on theirs.

To put it simply, Jesus didn't kill murderers, prostitutes or tax collectors - he converted them and that is the only "good" way of dealing with "bad" people. More pointedly, he would not have killed late-term abortionists either, as Christians in the US have in the past.

We have a significant disagreement here then PVC. Do you remember Sodom and Gomorrah? That was the same God as Jesus. People like Hitler were evil, they knew what they were doing was wrong, and they did it anyway. Are you honestly telling me that if you could go back in time before Hitler came to power and save the lives of tens of millions, and you had a gun to his head that you would even flinch before pulling that trigger? I certainly would not.
And no, I am not saying we should kill late-term abortionists. We have a legal system, and it needs to be used. We need to outlaw abortion, and make being an abortion doctor a crime that bears a life sentence with no chance for parole and no chance for early release.

You may think it is wrong, but it is my firm belief that there is a difference between killing and murder. What a soldier does to an enemy soldier is killing. What a soldier does to a civilian is murder. Shooting my neighbor because I do not like him is murder. Shooting my neighbor because he is raping his daughter is killing.
Every murderer, every rapist, and anyone found guilty of treason should get ten in the head. Period.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We have a significant disagreement here then PVC. Do you remember Sodom and Gomorrah? That was the same God as Jesus.

"the same God" is a debatable point, the historical veracity of that passage is a debatable point AND you have missed the meaning of the story. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah wer utterly unrepentant, their lack of remourse for their sinful lives was seen by God. We are not Gods, we do not see with Godly eyes, that is the difference.

People like Hitler were evil, they knew what they were doing was wrong, and they did it anyway.

Everything we know about Hitler points to his absolute belief in the rightness of what he was doing, as I have said above.

Are you honestly telling me that if you could go back in time before Hitler came to power and save the lives of tens of millions, and you had a gun to his head that you would even flinch before pulling that trigger? I certainly would not.

You mean murder him? No, I would not, I'd try to do something more productive, like use my foreknoledge to get the NAZI party outlawed or prevent Hitler from undertaking the Night of the Long Knives. Killing him in cold blood would be an incredibly crude solution to the problem, and might even make the geopolitical situation worse because without Hitler their would be no buttress against Stalin.

And no, I am not saying we should kill late-term abortionists. We have a legal system, and it needs to be used. We need to outlaw abortion, and make being an abortion doctor a crime that bears a life sentence with no chance for parole and no chance for early release.

Killing the late-term abortionists, or all abortionists, is more efficient. If a doctor knows he will suffer extra-judicial execution for performing an abortion you will have (virtually) no abortions, just like they got people to stop using Opium as an anasthetic in the Renaissance. If an abortionist carries out 3 abortions a week over 30 years that's 3*52*30=4,680 lives saved if you kill him before he even starts. How does that compare to Hitler, where would you draw the line? I don't think Hitler killed even 100 people personally, the "Final Solution" wasn't even his idea, anyway.

You may think it is wrong, but it is my firm belief that there is a difference between killing and murder. What a soldier does to an enemy soldier is killing. What a soldier does to a civilian is murder. Shooting my neighbor because I do not like him is murder. Shooting my neighbor because he is raping his daughter is killing.

What soldiers do in war is self defense, shooting your daughter's rapist is murder, shooting someone to stop them shooting someone else is defense of another.

Every murderer, every rapist, and anyone found guilty of treason should get ten in the head. Period.

Ok, when do you shoot the executioner if he executes a guiltless man.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Look a little closer: I think Nowake is of the opinion that religion must not influence (secular) law, and therefore that only secular ethics should be considered.

How do you tell the difference, I can defend my principles based on a largely "secular" model which involves what New Athiests would call "atheist" ethics, but is really Deism, and Humanistic principles, but my actual moral compass is fundamentally Christian. So are my ethics religious, secular?

[Vuk]

"the same God" is a debatable point, the historical veracity of that passage is a debatable point AND you have missed the meaning of the story. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah were utterly unrepentant, their lack of remorse for their sinful lives was seen by God. We are not Gods, we do not see with Godly eyes, that is the difference.



Everything we know about Hitler points to his absolute belief in the rightness of what he was doing, as I have said above.



You mean murder him? No, I would not, I'd try to do something more productive, like use my foreknowledge to get the NAZI party outlawed or prevent Hitler from undertaking the Night of the Long Knives. Killing him in cold blood would be an incredibly crude solution to the problem, and might even make the geopolitical situation worse because without Hitler their would be no buttress against Stalin.



Killing the late-term abortionists, or all abortionists, is more efficient. If a doctor knows he will suffer extra-judicial execution for performing an abortion you will have (virtually) no abortions, just like they got people to stop using Opium as an anesthetic in the Renaissance. If an abortionist carries out 3 abortions a week over 30 years that's 3*52*30=4,680 lives saved if you kill him before he even starts. How does that compare to Hitler, where would you draw the line? I don't think Hitler killed even 100 people personally, the "Final Solution" wasn't even his idea, anyway.



What soldiers do in war is self defense, shooting your daughter's rapist is murder, shooting someone to stop them shooting someone else is defense of another.



Ok, when do you shoot the executioner if he executes a guiltless man.

Does it matter if they believe in their evil if you cannot persuade them otherwise and they are killing innocent people?
So you think that letting Hitler live if you had the chance to kill him before he was responsible for a single death would have been a good thing? And no, Hitler was not needed as a buttress against Stalin. Stalin would not have been America's ally if they did not have a common enemy.
Ah, so you do have an exception for when killing is justified! Self-defense and the defense of others! As I said, not all killing is murder...I am glad that we agree. So tell me, stopping Hitler's genocide would not be defending the lives of others then?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Does it matter if they believe in their evil if you cannot persuade them otherwise and they are killing innocent people?
So you think that letting Hitler live if you had the chance to kill him before he was responsible for a single death would have been a good thing? And no, Hitler was not needed as a buttress against Stalin. Stalin would not have been America's ally if they did not have a common enemy.

It wasn't America that had to worry about Stalin.

Ah, so you do have an exception for when killing is justified! Self-defense and the defense of others! As I said, not all killing is murder...I am glad that we agree. So tell me, stopping Hitler's genocide would not be defending the lives of others then?

You do not understand my ethical system, which inclines me to think you haven't read my other posts in this thread. Put simply, forgiveable is not "justified" to be "justified" something has to be "right" killing is not right, but in certain situations it is forgiveable and understandable. War is a good example, we should never go to war but if we do then we should fight to protect those we love and their right to live in peace, not to kill our enemies. This is what keeps soldiers going through battle fatigue, love of their comrades, not hatred of their enemies.

This basic philosophy of violence is the one used by the US marines, btw, marines are no longer trained to view the enemy as subhuman because they found that when the marines went home after a tour they started abusing their families, so now they teach them to kill in defence of their comrades.

[Vuk]

It wasn't America that had to worry about Stalin.

Ah, so you do have an exception for when killing is justified! Self-defense and the defense of others! As I said, not all killing is murder...I am glad that we agree. So tell me, stopping Hitler's genocide would not be defending the lives of others then?[/QUOTE]

You do not understand my ethical system, which inclines me to think you haven't read my other posts in this thread. Put simply, forgiveable is not "justified" to be "justified" something has to be "right" killing is not right, but in certain situations it is forgiveable and understandable. War is a good example, we should never go to war but if we do then we should fight to protect those we love and their right to live in peace, not to kill our enemies. This is what keeps soldiers going through battle fatigue, love of their comrades, not hatred of their enemies.

This basic philosophy of violence is the one used by the US marines, btw, marines are no longer trained to view the enemy as subhuman because they found that when the marines went home after a tour they started abusing their families, so now they teach them to kill in defence of their comrades.[/QUOTE]
Semantics if you ask me, but I think we have wandered of the course of the thread.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Semantics if you ask me, but I think we have wandered of the course of the thread.

Not at all, and we haven't wandered that far, actually.

Should you ever kill?

Answer: No, but in certain situations it can be taken as given that, having exhausted all theoptions available to a reasonable, normal, person you killed because you percieved it to be the lesser of two evils. You still committed an evil act.

In such a situation it still behoves you to feel remorse, and it behoves society to forgive you, the same pertains in rape cases where we should allow abortion.

[Nowake]

Hey PVC

Immorality can be most usefully described as knowingly acting in a way which will negatively impact another, amorality might be described as giving no regard to the impact of your actions on others.

No, I asked you to differentiate between the two precisely because such views are mistaken. While morality is abstractly presumed good, the fact that good is itself defined by each society means that it simply encompasses the principles of a community, be they righteous or destructive. Since a cohesive group naturally agrees with its own set of morals, being described as a moral person is always accompanied by a misleading positive connotation. In fact, morality goes both ways and being immoral stands only for disagreeing with the community, the value of your impact is irrelevant. I.e. according to the Oxford dictionary, moral, adjective -- concerned with or derived from the code of behaviour that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society -- a woman showing her face publicly in certain Muslim communities is rightfully considered immoral and moral men righteously have the duty to rape her.
Your example:

In most cases where two strangers have sex one is predatory, generally has gone out with the express intention of "picking up" someone. The other is "picked up", various lures and underhand tactics are used, chiefly lieing, misrepresentation and intoxication. If two people meet in a bar and end up in bed, this is the general patter, no matter where they are in the world.

Perfectly concedes the point I made in my previous post. In most cases social pressure towards planning only for long-term relationships leaves people inadequately equipped to asses their own Otherness. They project and subjectively accept any confirmation of their beliefs. At best, they allow themselves to be charmed because social mores leave them no other possibility of living with their choices.

On the other hand, if two academics were to meet at a conference, say, and fall into bed after one gave a particularly passionate and lucid paper on 14th Century poetic lyrics addressed to the Virgin Mary that might conform to the sort of experience you describe, but in my experience such encounters also include an element of infidelity which, even if admitted to beforehand, demonstrated moral degeneracy and a lack of emotional maturity.

Element of infidelity towards whom,
demonstrates moral degeneracy due to which axiological arbiter
and shows a lack emotional maturity because it signifies what?

How do you tell the difference, I can defend my principles based on a largely "secular" model which involves what New Athiests would call "atheist" ethics, but is really Deism, and Humanistic principles, but my actual moral compass is fundamentally Christian. So are my ethics religious, secular?

First of all, TA is correct. Second of all, you are missing the point. The only goal is for you to be able to defend your Christian principles based solely on secular arguments. You may believe what you will, but none of your arguments can exist because “God says so”. Thus, we limit the values you can advance as part of a social agenda strictly to the ones which do not clash with our secular world-view. This thread is case in point, you were unable to allow yourself to justify an argument from a religious vantage point and your only footing amongst us in defining life and its privileges is the secular declaration of Human Rights.

[Papewaio]

Wouldn't evolution sort out abortions in the long term?

If someone is capable of an action must they do so?

If you are capable of taking a foetus to term must you?

If you are capable of having sex must you?

What is the difference between being forced to have sex and being forced to carry a foetus to term?

[Banquo's Ghost]

So you think that letting Hitler live if you had the chance to kill him before he was responsible for a single death would have been a good thing?

Fascinating. So if I understand your argument for preventative murder in certain circumstances, you would support the abortion of Hitler as a foetus? Or is it only after he was born that you would murder him? In the latter case, at what age is the deed acceptable?

[Tellos Athenaios]

How do you tell the difference, I can defend my principles based on a largely "secular" model which involves what New Athiests would call "atheist" ethics, but is really Deism, and Humanistic principles, but my actual moral compass is fundamentally Christian. So are my ethics religious, secular?

It's not easy to separate them and I'm not even sure that a strict “no product of religion in law, at all” works because generally the two overlap and shape each other to such an extent, but it seems quite easy to tell the difference when religion interferes with the secular debate. For instance from a secular point of view we wouldn't be having the discussion about ensoulment, would we?

[Major Robert Dump]

I wish I could get pregnant, just so I could get an abortion.

[Beskar]

Fascinating. So if I understand your argument for preventative murder in certain circumstances, you would support the abortion of Hitler as a foetus? Or is it only after he was born that you would murder him? In the latter case, at what age is the deed acceptable?

That reminds me of a 'joke' article I read years and years ago.

Title: Aborted Babies don't kill people, Unaborted Babies kill people

News flash: Every single murderer, rapist, and terrorist has been an unaborted fetus. Look in a history textbook, you will never find information about an abortion blowing something up, killing a jew, or flying an airplane into a building.

Instead of fighting the Middle East, we could have used all the funding on international pro-choice campaigns. Osama himself would probably have been aborted. If that were the case, September 11th would have never happened and 3000+ people would still be alive, no thanks to you stubborn anti-everything renegades.

More examples of unaborted babies:

1. The Columbine Crew
2. Michael Jackson
3. Beyonce Knowles

Unaborted babies shoot up their school, molest children, and make rubbish music. I don't even see why people want to have babies, it's insane.

[Vuk]

Fascinating. So if I understand your argument for preventative murder in certain circumstances, you would support the abortion of Hitler as a foetus? Or is it only after he was born that you would murder him? In the latter case, at what age is the deed acceptable?

We do not know if someone is going to be a raving lunatic, madman murderer until after they commit their acts of murder, so not, you cannot go indiscriminately killing unborn babies saying one may be evil.
That said, if (in the hypothetical scenario I laid out) you could go back in time and knew who Hitler was, of course I wouldn't object to aborting him as a baby. In real life however, people do not have that power, and 'preventative murder' does not exist, because we are not Gods and we do not know what will happen before it happens.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, I asked you to differentiate between the two precisely because such views are mistaken. While morality is abstractly presumed good, the fact that good is itself defined by each society means that it simply encompasses the principles of a community, be they righteous or destructive. Since a cohesive group naturally agrees with its own set of morals, being described as a moral person is always accompanied by a misleading positive connotation. In fact, morality goes both ways and being immoral stands only for disagreeing with the community, the value of your impact is irrelevant. I.e. according to the Oxford dictionary, moral, adjective -- concerned with or derived from the code of behaviour that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society -- a woman showing her face publicly in certain Muslim communities is rightfully considered immoral and moral men righteously have the duty to rape her.
Your example:

You begin by asking me to assent to an essentially Protagorean view of ethics, if I do so I automatically lose the arguement. It therefore goes almost without saying that I do not agree with your extreme epistomological relativism. It is niether self evident, nor provable, that my view of morality is "mistaken". In fact, the inherrent weakness of epistomological relativism is that it is only correct according to your own point of view, but not in general. To say that the only truth is that there are no truths is a logical paradox, and I therefore reject it.

Even so, you have missed my actual point, which refered to effect and regard. I identified imorality as deliberately acting in a way which caused harm to another, rather than a prescriptive version of absolute morality that defines a particular act as inherrently immoral, I could have said, "pre-marital sex cheapens the act of spirtual joining, etc." I didn't.

Perfectly concedes the point I made in my previous post. In most cases social pressure towards planning only for long-term relationships leaves people inadequately equipped to asses their own Otherness. They project and subjectively accept any confirmation of their beliefs. At best, they allow themselves to be charmed because social mores leave them no other possibility of living with their choices.

So you acknowledge the harm? You are essentially arguing here that society should change and conform to the predator, or rather that if we were all predators there would be no prey. Underlying this appears to be the assumption that "social pressure" is artificial rather than organic, this is the same intellectually elite fallacy you deployed before.

Most people ultimately want a family, ergo a long term relationship, ergo society reflects this. This is not a social construction, it reflects our need to procreate efficiently.

Element of infidelity towards whom,
demonstrates moral degeneracy due to which axiological arbiter
and shows a lack emotional maturity because it signifies what?

Infidelity to acknowledged partner
Moral degeneracy due to failure to keep word (often these people are married, or in an aknowledgedly monogomous relationships)
Lack of emotional maturity due to an inability to restrain base urges in view of the impact their actions will have on their significant othe, and/or a willingness to lie to their partner. This also evidences a profound lack of what you identified as the ability to appreciate oneself as Other.

First of all, TA is correct. Second of all, you are missing the point. The only goal is for you to be able to defend your Christian principles based solely on secular arguments. You may believe what you will, but none of your arguments can exist because “God says so”. Thus, we limit the values you can advance as part of a social agenda strictly to the ones which do not clash with our secular world-view. This thread is case in point, you were unable to allow yourself to justify an argument from a religious vantage point and your only footing amongst us in defining life and its privileges is the secular declaration of Human Rights.

Would my metaphysical beliefs in an objective moral reality be permissable, or do I have to subscribe to your relativistic ones? As this is a metaphyisical question you can't prove the issue either way.

It's not easy to separate them and I'm not even sure that a strict “no product of religion in law, at all” works because generally the two overlap and shape each other to such an extent, but it seems quite easy to tell the difference when religion interferes with the secular debate. For instance from a secular point of view we wouldn't be having the discussion about ensoulment, would we?

Well, I can say that the "soul" is out contiousness, and in that sense we can talk about the emerging conciousness in a feotus, and the potential for a conciousness to emerge in an embryo. All that is lacking from that version of a "soul" is its connection to God, the consequences of the argument are exactly the same. Nurtured and protected an embryo will ultimately develop into a unique human being with her own aspirations, beliefs and unique view of the world.

This point can be applied practically when you consider that many great artists and other luminaries were born to poor families. Steve Jobs, for example, was given up for adoption 56 years ago, but today he might be aborted. This is not an argument in itself, but I feel it brings into sharp focus the issue we are discussing, which is ultimately about human lives.

[Banquo's Ghost]

We do not know if someone is going to be a raving lunatic, madman murderer until after they commit their acts of murder, so not, you cannot go indiscriminately killing unborn babies saying one may be evil.
That said, if (in the hypothetical scenario I laid out) you could go back in time and knew who Hitler was, of course I wouldn't object to aborting him as a baby. In real life however, people do not have that power, and 'preventative murder' does not exist, because we are not Gods and we do not know what will happen before it happens.

Indeed we cannot, but your argument presents an interesting ethical position. Not least from your previous post advocating the execution of those carrying our abortions - this sentence would apply to the person aborting Hitler? (Truly, this is becoming one of the finest Godwin's I have managed to peddle into something approximating a discussion )

For a related example, there are some circumstances when we know for certain that a genetic condition will cause the newborn immense and swiftly terminal suffering. In your view, is it evil or good to inflict that suffering?

[Vuk]

Indeed we cannot, but your argument presents an interesting ethical position. Not least from your previous post advocating the execution of those carrying our abortions - this sentence would apply to the person aborting Hitler? (Truly, this is becoming one of the finest Godwin's I have managed to peddle into something approximating a discussion )

For a related example, there are some circumstances when we know for certain that a genetic condition will cause the newborn immense and swiftly terminal suffering. In your view, is it evil or good to inflict that suffering?

First of all, I did not advocate the execution of those carrying out abortions. I advocated making it illegal to carry out abortions, and sentencing those who did it to life.
Second of all, abortion is an evil because it is the killing of innocent people. In your Hitler example, you already know that he is not innocent, so it is not murder...simply execution for crimes he already committed.
As far as babies born with terminal illnesses, yes, I believe the parents should be able to choose for certain illnesses whether to abort the baby or not, for the sake of saving it pain and suffering.
That is not why 99.99% of abortions are carried out though. Exceptions can always be made in the law for that and times when the mother would die.

[Nowake]

Afternoon PVC

this is the same intellectually elite fallacy you deployed before
You are falling into the aristocratic fallacy that the "lower orders" are degenerate due to base stupidity/ignorance, such is not so. Historical degeneracy at the bottom of society tends to follow degeneracy at the top.

Thank you for reminding me I should’ve replied to this bit before.
Leaving aside your generic portrayal of elites throughout history as an aristocracy a la Ancien Régime, your assertion is demonstrably false. No one has a monopoly on originating “degeneracy”. I.e. unless you would argue the degeneracy of British football hooligans was somehow copied from Oxbridge culture, or the sexual mores hippies displayed at Woodstock were simply a leaf taken the books of North-Eastern WASP families?
Currently, the issues which were on our table, the degeneracy caused by ignorance towards contraceptive methods and prevention of STDs and what not, are disproportionately a problem stemming from the want of knowledge of lower class citizens, not sexual liberty.

So you acknowledge the harm? You are essentially arguing here that society should change and conform to the predator, or rather that if we were all predators there would be no prey. Underlying this appears to be the assumption that "social pressure" is artificial rather than organic, this is the same intellectually elite fallacy you deployed before. (...)
Infidelity to acknowledged partner
Moral degeneracy due to failure to keep word (often these people are married, or in an aknowledgedly monogomous relationships)
Lack of emotional maturity due to an inability to restrain base urges in view of the impact their actions will have on their significant othe, and/or a willingness to lie to their partner. This also evidences a profound lack of what you identified as the ability to appreciate oneself as Other.

Oh not at all, you confuse the actors. There are no predators in cases where consensual sex between unattached adults aware of each other’s social commitments takes place.

As to your answers to my inquiry asking for clarification, you’re clearly adding details to your initial example. You first described a couple of intellectuals consenting to have sex. No mention of the existence of an implicit commitment towards a long-term bond, existing relationships with a third party or negative consequences. Believe it or not, cases such as these abound all over the world, I could not presume you omitted anything on purpose.
Thus, lets try this again, perfectly normal and common consensual sex with an explicit non-binding nature between unattached adults aware of each other’s social commitments takes place, where is the infidelity, moral degeneracy and lack of emotional maturity?

Would my metaphysical beliefs in an objective moral reality be permissable, or do I have to subscribe to your relativistic ones?

I was clear in my explanation from the beginning though. Any belief is permissible, you simply aren’t allowed to argue for its enforcement on the grounds that “it is your belief”, you must use secular principles, which are empathy-based.

You begin by asking me to assent to an essentially Protagorean view of ethics, if I do so I automatically lose the arguement. It therefore goes almost without saying that I do not agree with your extreme epistomological relativism. It is niether self evident, nor provable, that my view of morality is "mistaken". In fact, the inherrent weakness of epistomological relativism is that it is only correct according to your own point of view, but not in general.

But you already lost the argument in the developed world. I am just reigning you in. We can debate opinions PVC, but we cannot argue about facts, things which are either one way or another. The “weakness” you describe is confirmed by the plurality of our race; you are “mistaken” because you’re placing yourself in opposition to reality.
And this whole side-argument began because I wanted to be clear my correct, dictionary validated usage of the term immoral in the phrase:
I can accept PVC’s pining for a less immoral (and here one has to clearly distinguish between the context of immorality, as defined specifically in some Western countries, and amorality) age
is not given the extra-valences one presumes of it nowadays, especially one who is religious.
The only absolute moral principles we can accept are those which can withstand the test of empathy.

[Banquo's Ghost]

First of all, I did not advocate the execution of those carrying out abortions. I advocated making it illegal to carry out abortions, and sentencing those who did it to life.

My apologies, I conflated a post of PVC's with yours. :embarrassed:

Second of all, abortion is an evil because it is the killing of innocent people. In your Hitler example, you already know that he is not innocent, so it is not murder...simply execution for crimes he already committed.
As far as babies born with terminal illnesses, yes, I believe the parents should be able to choose for certain illnesses whether to abort the baby or not, for the sake of saving it pain and suffering.
That is not why 99.99% of abortions are carried out though. Exceptions can always be made in the law for that and times when the mother would die.

OK, I understand your position more clearly now. Thank you.

[Kralizec]

You all need to stick to the topic, and respond to my previous post

Most people ultimately want a family, ergo a long term relationship, ergo society reflects this. This is not a social construction, it reflects our need to procreate efficiently.



Infidelity to acknowledged partner
Moral degeneracy due to failure to keep word (often these people are married, or in an aknowledgedly monogomous relationships)
Lack of emotional maturity due to an inability to restrain base urges in view of the impact their actions will have on their significant othe, and/or a willingness to lie to their partner. This also evidences a profound lack of what you identified as the ability to appreciate oneself as Other.

You are deliberately lumping all out-of-marriage sex with borderline rape-cases and adultery. Most of the people who have casual sex with strangers or near-strangers do intend to pick a permanent partner to go forth with and multiply when they're a little older. I fail to see what the problem is as long as there's consent from both sides - having had a moderate amount of alcohol beforehand doesn't invalidate it. Honestly, if your objections here aren't grounded in your religious views then I don't know what to make of it. I do not see how casual sex between strangers, without additional qualifiers, in itself would lead to moral degeneration or a dysfunctional society. Stuff like unwanted pregnancies, rampant STD's and single parent families (note: not saying that there's something wrong with single parents per se; I'm referring to accidental pregnancies where the father bails out) result from poor upbringing, bad education and whatnot - pinning it entirely on "sex" or "sex outside of marriage" is disingenuous.

[rory_20_uk]

Fathers often bail out as the law is so biased against the father. Some probably think best to start again, rather than fight it through the courts for months. Then they can go back every time there is a problem with the arrangements. For the woman to get her child support takes a couple of weeks and comes straight out of the salary before the man gets it.

[Viking]

I think this whole idea that abortion is solely a question for the female involved is a self-rigtheous cop-out. It so nicely dodges the question of moral responsibility when it comes to foetuses. There is this slightly yes/no question that sits at the centre of this debate - that is question of the 'rights' of a foetus: does it have any?

I will now pretend that a foetus have the same rights as an adult human (something which I vehemently disagree with in real life). If the foetus did not threaten the life of the mother, it would clearly be murder to abort it. This means, beyond the special case of rape, it would be the moral responsibility of humans not to create unwanted foetuses, because it would be murder to remove them.

This means that if the female would want to maintain full control over her body, she should either a) remain sexually inactive or b) accept the risks that come with sexual activity - in this case: unwanted pregnancy.

This is unfair for the female gender, but such is the world at times. Living comes with responsibilities, and you cannot dodge them by claiming that they are "unfair".

Unwanted pregnancies can be avoided. 100% (rape excluded).

---

Just to reiterate my position: I think it is completely absurd to let a weeks old foetus override the desires of an adult person, and so abortion is typically fine. Foetus =/= human being.

You all need to stick to the topic, and respond to my previous post

I am only going to say that I am all for prenatal eugenics, and leave it at that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Afternoon PVC

Thank you for reminding me I should’ve replied to this bit before.
Leaving aside your generic portrayal of elites throughout history as an aristocracy a la Ancien Régime, your assertion is demonstrably false. No one has a monopoly on originating “degeneracy”. I.e. unless you would argue the degeneracy of British football hooligans was somehow copied from Oxbridge culture, or the sexual mores hippies displayed at Woodstock were simply a leaf taken the books of North-Eastern WASP families?

Ever heard of the Bullingdon club? I can't speak for America and Woodstock but university students in the UK have a long history of Hooliganism, and like the "Buller" the difference between upper class hooligans and lower class ones is that in the former case his Pa might come round the next day and pay for the damages and offer something approaching an apology, if you're lucky. More recently, one of the justifications used for the London riots, which were nothing but criminal destruction, was that if MP's and Bankers can get away with anything why should "ordinary" people obey the law.

Currently, the issues which were on our table, the degeneracy caused by ignorance towards contraceptive methods and prevention of STDs and what not, are disproportionately a problem stemming from the want of knowledge of lower class citizens, not sexual liberty.

High numbers of single teenage mothers are caused by moral degeneracy and poor sexual habits, not ignorance. The people know about condoms and the Pill, often they choose not to use them. What is lacking is the ability and or willingness to take responsibility for ones actions.

Oh not at all, you confuse the actors. There are no predators in cases where consensual sex between unattached adults aware of each other’s social commitments takes place.

This is absurd, because most one night stands happen between strangers who do not know each others' social commitments. If I walk into a bar and I buy a girl a drink and she says, "do you have a girlfriend" and I say "no." she can only take my word for it. Among complete strangers this can be taken even further, in a random bar in London I can put on a talored suit and shiny shoes and call myself a Banker, but I am in fact just a "poor clerk that can getten him no prefferment nor benefice."

As to your answers to my inquiry asking for clarification, you’re clearly adding details to your initial example. You first described a couple of intellectuals consenting to have sex. No mention of the existence of an implicit commitment towards a long-term bond, existing relationships with a third party or negative consequences. Believe it or not, cases such as these abound all over the world, I could not presume you omitted anything on purpose.
Thus, lets try this again, perfectly normal and common consensual sex with an explicit non-binding nature between unattached adults aware of each other’s social commitments takes place, where is the infidelity, moral degeneracy and lack of emotional maturity?

You didn't read what I wrote, I said:

On the other hand, if two academics were to meet at a conference, say, and fall into bed after one gave a particularly passionate and lucid paper on 14th Century poetic lyrics addressed to the Virgin Mary that might conform to the sort of experience you describe, but in my experience such encounters also include an element of infidelity which, even if admitted to beforehand, demonstrated moral degeneracy and a lack of emotional maturity.

Infidelity, that is explicit as to the cause of the immorallity in my example, which is based on reports of actual events.

I was clear in my explanation from the beginning though. Any belief is permissible, you simply aren’t allowed to argue for its enforcement on the grounds that “it is your belief”, you must use secular principles, which are empathy-based.

I think you'll find that "secular" principles are generally based on deductive logic and balance/value judgements, not empathy. A judgement based on "empathy" would see me become a vegetarian because I don't enjoy killing sheep, as I suffer a negative emotional response from the slaughter.

But you already lost the argument in the developed world.

Fashion is ever changing, just because we live in a relativistic period which does not make value or worth judgements does not mean it will always be so. You're wrong anyway, not only is my absolutist view of morality shared by most religious people, it is also shared by many "secularists" and the New Athiests. About the only thing I agree with Richard Dawkins on is that there is good and evil in the world.

I am just reigning you in. We can debate opinions PVC, but we cannot argue about facts, things which are either one way or another. The “weakness” you describe is confirmed by the plurality of our race; you are “mistaken” because you’re placing yourself in opposition to reality.

No, you're just winding me up.

In order for me to be in opposition to reality reality must be objective, but you are an epistomological relativist. AND you have answered my question, I must subscribe to your metaphysics.

I refuse, and I rebuke you ths.

YOU ARE IN OPPOSITION TO REALITY

And this whole side-argument began because I wanted to be clear my correct, dictionary validated usage of the term immoral in the phrase:
I can accept PVC’s pining for a less immoral (and here one has to clearly distinguish between the context of immorality, as defined specifically in some Western countries, and amorality) age
is not given the extra-valences one presumes of it nowadays, especially one who is religious.
The only absolute moral principles we can accept are those which can withstand the test of empathy.

You quoted the OED short definition of "moral" not "immoral". You also quoted selectively, the whole entry from the acual OED reads:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Pronunciation: Brit. /ˈmɒrəl/ , /ˈmɒrlˌ/ , U.S. /ˈmɔr(ə)l/ Forms: ME–15 moralle, ME–16 morale, ME–16 morall, ME– moral, 15–16 morrall; Sc. pre-17 morale, pre-17 morall, pre-17 morell, pre-17 morrall, pre-17 17– moral. ... (Show More)
Etymology: < Anglo-Norman and Middle French moral (late 13th cent. in Old French in phrase vertu morale : see moral virtue n.; c1370 modifying other nouns; 1403 in philosophie morele ; late 17th cent. in sense ‘founded on opinion, sentiment or belief and not on meticulous facts or reasoning’; mid 18th cent. in sense ‘relating to the soul or spirit, as opposed to the physical’) and their etymon classical Latin mōrālis concerned with ethics, moral < mōr- , mōs custom (plural mōrēs habits, morals (compare mores n.); of unknown origin) + -ālis -al suffix¹. Classical Latin mōrālis was formed by Cicero ( De Fato ii. i) as a rendering of ancient Greek ἠθικός ethic adj. (mōrēs being the accepted Latin equivalent of ἤθη ).Compare Italian morale decent, proper (late 13th cent.; early 14th cent. in sense ‘concerning modes of behaviour’), Spanish moral (c1330), Old Occitan moral (14th cent.), Portuguese moral (1525); also Dutch moreel (1889; < French moral , with alteration of the suffix), German moralisch (16th cent.), Swedish moralisk (17th cent.), Danish moralsk .

In sense 2d after post-classical Latin moralis , from 5th cent. in this sense.
In moral philosophy after classical Latin philosophia mōrālis , Middle French philosophie morele (1403; French philosophie morale ).
In moral philosopher after post-classical Latin philosophus moralis (from early 13th cent. in British sources, of Seneca); compare Middle French philosophes moriaux , plural (late 16th cent., used of the moralists of antiquity).
With moral science compare French science morale (early 17th cent. or earlier; compare Anglo-Norman les sept sciences, qe sount logiciene, naturele, morale, [etc.] , mid 14th cent.).
With moral theology compare French théologie morale (1868 in Littré).... (Show More)
1. Thesaurus »
Categories »

a. Of or relating to human character or behaviour considered as good or bad; of or relating to the distinction between right and wrong, or good and evil, in relation to the actions, desires, or character of responsible human beings; ethical.Recorded earliest in moral virtue n.

c1387–95 Chaucer Canterbury Tales Prol. 307 Sownynge in moral vertu was his speche.
a1402 J. Trevisa tr. R. Fitzralph Defensio Curatorum (1925) 81 No man may feyne þat the forseide heeste is cerymonial‥For hit is verrey moral, longynge to good þewes.
c1449 R. Pecock Repressor (1860) 155 Sum vntrewe opinioun of men‥is leding into deedis whiche ben grete moral vicis.
a1500 (1340) R. Rolle Psalter (Univ. Oxf. 64) (1884) cxviii. 1 Þis psalme‥all shynys of haly lare and morale swetnes.
1593 G. Harvey Pierces Supererogation 103 An aduauncement‥of that morall, and intellectuall good, that‥so forciblie emprooueth itselfe.
a1616 Shakespeare All's Well that ends Well (1623) i. ii. 21 Youth, thou bear'st thy Fathers face‥Thy Fathers morall parts Maist thou inherit too.
1675 R. Burthogge Cavsa Dei 97 Since the Objection doth proceed of Moral, and not of Metaphysical and Abstract Goodness.
1740 D. Hume Treat. Human Nature III. i. 17 If these moral relations cou'd be apply'd to external objects, it wou'd follow, that even inanimate beings wou'd be susceptible of moral beauty and deformity.
1784 E. Allen Reason viii. §2. 303 Moral good or evil is mental and personal, which cannot be transferred, changed or altered from one person to another.
1839 H. Hallam Introd. Lit. Europe IV. iv. 306 The theologians who went no farther than revelation, or at least than the positive law of God, for moral distinctions.
1876 J. B. Mozley Serm. before Univ. Oxf. iv. 97 It is plain that eloquence, imagination, poetical talent, are no more moral goodness than riches are.
1949 M. Fortes Social Struct. 60 Its form derives from a paradigm‥sanctioned by‥moral values.
1988 T. L. S. Sprigge Rational Found. Ethics iv. 93 In identifying moral goodness with benevolence, he [sc. Hutcheson] had seen the goodness of a man as essentially the amount of happiness he produced divided by his opportunities.

c1387-95—1988(Hide quotations)




Thesaurus »

b. Of an action: having the property of being right or wrong, or good or evil; voluntary or deliberate and therefore open to ethical appraisal. Of a person, etc.: capable of moral action; able to choose between right and wrong, or good and evil.

1593 R. Hooker Of Lawes Eccl. Politiei. xvi. 93 The axiomes of that lawe‥haue their vse in the morall, yea, euen in the spirituall actions of men.
1690 J. Locke Ess. Humane Understandingii. xxvii. 157 There is another sort of Relation, which is the Conformity, or Disagreement, Mens voluntary Actions have to a Rule, to which they are referred, and by which they are judged of; which, I think, may be called Moral Relation; as being that which denominates our Moral Actions.
1736 Bp. J. Butler Analogy of Relig.i. iii. 54 That God has given us a moral Nature,‥[is] a Proof of our being under his moral Government.
1754 J. Edwards Careful Enq. Freedom of Willi. v. 29 A moral Agent is a Being that is capable of those Actions that have a moral Quality.
1802 W. Paley Nat. Theol. xxvii. 586 The moral and accountable part of his terrestrial creation.
1868 A. Bain Mental & Moral Sci. 403 Every creature possessing mind is a moral agent.
1910 Encycl. Brit. I. 766/1 A philosophical term‥for that theory of conduct which regards the good of others as the end of moral action.
1946 Mind 55 115 A will-less saint would be a sub-moral being, a fine creature perhaps, but not a responsible moral agent.
1980 J. H. Crook Evol. Human Consciousness ii. 14 In some Christian doctrine the flesh is the source of evil and the soul or mind is elevated as the moral agent with behavioural choice.

1593—1980(Hide quotations)





c. Of knowledge, an opinion, etc.: relating to the nature and application of the distinction between right and wrong, or good and evil. Cf. sense 2c.

1690 J. Locke Ess. Humane Understandingiv. iv. 284 And hence it follows, that moral Knowledge is as capable of real Certainty, as Mathematicks.
1752 Philos. Trans. 1749–50 (Royal Soc.) 46 750 The original meaning of the Word Philosophy was rightly applied to moral Wisdom.
1752 Ld. Chesterfield Let. 6 Jan. (1932) (modernized text) V. 1815 If the religious and moral principles of the Society [sc. the Jesuits] are to be detested.
1817 S. T. Coleridge Biographia Literaria I. x. 213 My essays contributed to introduce the practice of placing the questions and events of the day in a moral point of view.
1883 W. James Let. 23 Jan. in R. B. Perry Thought & Char. W. James (1935) I. 389 Although from a moral point of view your sympathy commands my warmest thanks, from the intellectual point of view, it seems, first, to suppose that I am a bachelor [etc.].
1951 C. Day Lewis Poet's Task 19 As an aesthetic judgement this is so bizarre that one can only take it for a moral judgement.
1988 R. Christiansen Romantic Affinities ii. 77 He hectored his fiancée Wilhelmine with lists of knotty moral questions: ‘Is it better to do good, or to be good?’

1690—1988(Hide quotations)





d. Of an idea, speech, etc.: involving ethical praise or blame.

1690 J. Locke Ess. Humane Understanding Contents (heading) Book IV‥Chap. III‥19. Two Things have made moral Ideas thought uncapable of Demonstration. Their Complexedness, and want of sensible Representations.
1845 W. Whewell Elem. Morality I. 238 The Supreme Standard‥is expressed by the Moral Ideas, Benevolence, Justice, Truth, Purity, and Wisdom.
1865 J. Grote Treat. Moral Ideals (1876) 108 Those words, like all moral words, by frequent complimentary use‥have lost much of their warmth and force.
1908 E. Westermarck (title) The origin and development of the moral ideas.
1992 Times Higher Educ. Suppl. 27 Mar. 16/2 Dewey‥tried to modernise liberal political discourse through moral concepts derived from the social sciences.

1690—1992(Hide quotations)





e. Of a feeling: arising from an apprehension or sense of the goodness or badness of an action, character, etc.

1768 L. Sterne Sentimental Journey I. 134 With what a moral delight will it crown my journey.
1830 M. Donovan Domest. Econ. II. iii. 45 To those who have got over the moral disgust of such food [sc. human flesh], it‥has recommendatory qualities.
1872 J. Morley Voltaire i. 7 Perhaps a moral relish for veritable proofs of honesty,‥drives men to grasp even a crudity with fervour.
1984 ‘J. Gash’ Gondola Scam (1985) xv. 112 Moral indignation from a Venetian is a scream, seeing they invented Carnival and the cicisbeo, that sissy upper-class version of a gigolo.

1768—1984(Hide quotations)





2. Thesaurus »
Categories »

a. Of a literary work, an artistic or dramatic representation, etc.: dealing with the rightness and wrongness of conduct; intended to teach morality or convey a moral; (hence also) having a beneficial moral effect, edifying. In early use also: †allegorical, emblematical (obs.).

c1390 Chaucer Melibeus 2130 It is a moral tale vertuous.
c1390 Chaucer Pardoner's Tale 39 Tel vs som moral thyng that we may leere Som wit.
c1443 R. Pecock Reule of Crysten Religioun (Morgan M 519) 434 Þese now seid persoones wroote þe story of þe new testament and al þe moral documentis of þe same testament.
a1500 (1425) tr. Secreta Secret. (Lamb.) 48 He made many morales epistels to Aristotel.
1526 Pylgrimage of Perfection (de Worde) f. 2, They shal haue therby a lyght to perceyue the better all moral matter, that they shall here preched or taught.
1568 (1505) R. Henryson tr. Æsop Fables (Bannatyne) 1401, I pray Vndir the figure of sum brutall beist, A morall fable ȝe wald dedene to say.
a1616 Shakespeare Timon of Athens (1623) i. i. 91 A thousand morall Paintings I can shew, That shall demonstrate these quicke blowes of Fortunes, More pregnantly then words.
1660 F. Brooke tr. V. Le Blanc World Surveyed 272 We had the pleasure there to see a morall representation of the Magdalens conversion.
1671 Milton Samson Agonistes Pref. 3 Tragedy‥hath been ever held the gravest, moralest, and most profitable of all other Poems.
1726 Swift Gulliver I. ii. vii. 134 From this way of Reasoning the Author drew several moral Applications useful in the Conduct of Life.
1744 Pope Wks. (1755) III. 105 (title) Moral Essays, in four epistles to Several Persons.
1789 H. L. Thrale Observ. Journey France I. 115 To what purpose then‥the moral dances, as they call them now? One word of solid instruction to the ear, conveys more knowledge to the mind at last, than all these marionettes presented to the eye.
1811 R. Hunter (title) The schoolmistress, a moral tale for young ladies.
1873 R. Browning Red Cotton Night-cap Countryiii. 171 The late death-chamber, tricked with‥Skulls, cross-bones, and such moral broidery.
1919 W. S. Maugham Moon & Sixpence ii. 10 Mr. Crabbe was as dead as mutton, but Mr. Crabbe continued to write moral stories in rhymed couplets.
1987 G. Phelps Short Guide to World Novel (1988) 141 Catherine the Great‥wrote a number of moral fables.

c1390—1987(Hide quotations)





†b. Of a person, esp. a writer: expounding moral precepts (in early use applied to allegorists). Also in extended use. Obs.

a1425 (1385) Chaucer Troilus & Criseyde (1987) v. 1856 O moral Gower, this book I directe To the.
a1450 (1421) Lydgate Siege Thebes (Arun.) 995 A Tragedye of Moral Senyk.
c1460 Lydgate Minor Poems (1934) ii. 784 The tragedyes‥Of moral Senek.
1508 W. Dunbar Goldyn Targe (Chepman & Myllar) in Poems (1998) 192 O morall Gower and Ludgate laureate.
1582 T. Watson In Commend. Aucthor in G. Whetstone Heptameron Ciuill Disc. sig. ¶, Euen as the fruictfull Bee, doth‥Sweet Honie draine, & layes it vp,‥So, Morall Whetstone, to his Countrey doth impart, A Worke of worth.
1600 Shakespeare Much Ado about Nothingv. i. 30 Tis all mens office, to speake patience To those that wring vnder the loade of sorrow But no mans vertue nor sufficiencie To be so morall, when he shall endure The like himselfe.
1718 M. Prior Picture Seneca Dying in Poems Several Occasions 8 While cruel Nero only drains The moral Spaniard's ebbing Veins.
1742 E. Young Complaintix. 534 The moral muse has shadow'd out a sketch.

a1425—1742(Hide quotations)




Thesaurus »

c. Treating of or concerned with the nature of good and evil, right and wrong, or the rules of right conduct, as a subject of study.

c1443 R. Pecock Reule of Crysten Religioun (Morgan M 519) 334 Leernyd men in logik, in natural philosophie and moral philosophie and in diuinite.
1656 T. Hobbes Elements Philos.i. i. 7 From the want of Morall science proceed Civill warres, and the greatest calamities of mankind.
1741 I. Watts Improvem. Mindi. xvii. 269 Fabellus would never learn any Moral Lessons till they were moulded into the Form of some‥Fable.
1791 Bp. G. Horne Charge to Clergy 14 Morality‥hath four chief virtues, which moral writers have well explained.
a1866 J. Grote Exam. Utilit. Philos. (1870) iv. 61 A description as complete and beautiful, I think, as is to be found in any moral writings.
1878 J. P. Hopps (title) Religious and moral lectures.
1990 R. McCormick & M. James Curriculum Eval. in Schools 51 Other subjects‥included:‥history and geography; moral education; health education [etc.].

c1443—1990(Hide quotations)




Thesaurus »
Categories »

d. Designating or relating to an interpretation of a biblical passage which treats the events described as typifying something in the life of the reader; = tropological adj. 2. Later also in extended use.In quot. 1529 used adverbially.

a1450 (1397) Prol. Old Test. in Bible (Wycliffite, L.V.) (Harl. 1666) (1850) 3 To the literal vndirstonding it [sc. Jerusalem] singnefieth an erthly citee‥to allegorie it singnefieth hooly chirche in erthe‥to moral vndirstondinge it singnefieth a cristen soule [etc.].
c1475 (1445) R. Pecock Donet 107 Such a moral vndirstonding or an allegorie or an anogogie of holi scripture.
1503 S. Hawes Example of Vertu ix. 10, I‥lykened the wyldernes by morall scence Vnto worldely trouble by good experyence.
1529 T. More Supplyc. Soulysii. f. xxx, Bycause some doctours do conster those wordys of thappostle in dyuerse other sensys,‥sometyme after the letter, somtyme morall and somtyme other wyse.
1572 J. Higgins Huloets Dict. (new ed.) (at cited word), The morall sence of a fable, epimythium.
1600 Shakespeare Much Ado about Nothingiii. iv. 74 Morall? no by my troth I haue no morall meaning, I meant plaine holy thissel.
1609 Bible (Douay) I. Gen. i. 1 Comm., There are three spiritual senses besides the literal‥: Allegorical‥Moral‥and Anagogical.
1794 R. J. Sulivan View Nature II, There is a grammatical and an anagogetical or moral sense.
1884 Expositor Jan. 45 The three traditional divisions of the mystic sense into allegoric, tropologic or moral, and anagogic or spiritual.
1952 Yale French Stud. 9 62 Old desires must be clarified and the lovers must grow in understanding. This is the final tropological or moral sense of the poem.

a1450—1952(Hide quotations)





3.
a. Of, relating to, or concerned with the morals or morality of a person or group of people.

a1393 Gower Confessio Amantis (Fairf.) vii. 1650 Hou that a king himself schal reule Of his moral condicion With worthi disposicion Of good livinge in his persone.
1670 R. G. Preston (title) Angliæ speculum morale; the moral state of England.
1794 W. Paley View Evidences Christianity I. i. v. 119 The phrases which the same writer employs to describe the moral condition of Christians, compared with their condition before they became Christians.
1818 H. Hallam View Europe Middle Ages II. ix. 602/2 His standard is taken, not from Avignon, but from Edinburgh,‥where the moral barometer stands at a very different altitude.
1848 W. K. Kelly tr. L. Blanc Hist. Ten Years I. 382 The moral interests of society seemed still more compromised than the material.
1874 J. R. Green Short Hist. Eng. People vii. §5. 393 The moral and religious change which was passing over the country through the progress of Puritanism.
1914 Observer 16 Aug. 4/6 That means an immense moral change. All modern Germany has been brought up to adore the myth which attributed to them alone the secret of some unapproachable military efficiency.
1993 Lancaster Diocesan Catholic Voice Apr. 2 Much debate has evolved as to the moral state of our nation and of our young people in particular.

a1393—1993(Hide quotations)





b. Relating to, affecting, or having influence on a person's character or conduct, as distinguished from his or her intellectual or physical nature.

1597 R. Hooker Of Lawes Eccl. Politiev. lvii.128 Sacraments‥are not physicall but morall instruments of saluation, duties of seruice and worship.
1600 Shakespeare Much Ado about Nothingi. iii. 11, I wonder that thou‥goest about to apply a morall medicine, to a mortifying mischiefe.
1659 H. Thorndike Epil. Trag. Church of Eng.i. 186, I acknowledg the Scriptures to be an Instrument of God, though a Moral Instrument.
1728 E. Chambers Cycl. at Necessity, The Schools distinguish a Physical Necessity, and a Moral Necessity.‥ Moral Necessity‥is only a great Difficulty, such as that arising from a Long Habitude, a strong Inclination, or violent Passion.
1742 E. Young Complaintv. 284 I'll‥gather ev'ry thought of sov'reign power To chace the moral maladies of man.
1780 W. Cowper Progress of Error 272 'Tis not alone the grape's enticing juice Unnerves the moral pow'rs, and mars their use.
1823 W. Cobbett Rural Rides in Weekly Reg. 6 Sept. 602 There is now very little moral hold which the latter [sc. the clergy] possess.
1841 H. D. Thoreau Jrnl. 19 Feb. (1981) I. 269 It is a moral force as well as he.
1851 Edinb. Rev. Jan. 225 The only effect produced was a kind of amicable splitting of the repeal party into two co-operative factions,—the moral-force men and the physical-force men.
1868 A. Bain Mental & Moral Sci. 395 Moral Inability expresses the insufficiency of ordinary motives, but not of all motives.
1913 Act 3 & 4 Geo. V c. 28 §1 Moral imbeciles; that is to say, persons who from an early age display some permanent mental defect coupled with strong vicious or criminal propensities.
1951 R. Firth Elem. Social Organization vi. 213 It is in the capacity to generate and adapt moral force that man derives one of the most potent springs to social action.
1968 Listener 26 Sept. 408/1 ‘Moral insanity’ was superseded by ‘moral imbecility’; this in turn gave way to ‘psychopathic personality’ (which had developed out of ‘constitutional psychopathic inferiority’).
1986 J. Huxley Leaves of Tulip Tree (1987) iv. 78 Julian was not a physical but a moral invalid, absent from himself, indifferent to everything.

1597—1986(Hide quotations)





c. Modifying a noun: having those qualities (i.e. those of the noun) metaphorically in respect of moral character or condition.

1692 R. L'Estrange Fables cccxxviii. 286 If all our Moral Wolves in Sheeps-Cloathing, were but Serv'd as This Hypocritical Wolfe was in the Fiction.
1813 Shelley Queen Mabii. 25 Where Athens, Rome, and Sparta stood, There is a moral desart now.
1821 Scott Kenilworth III. v. 78 Varney was one of the few—the very few moral monsters, who contrive to lull to sleep the remorse of their own bosoms.
1852 G. C. Mundy Our Antipodes I. iii. 93 Sufferers for the sins of their fathers, moral bastards.
1894 W. E. Gladstone in Times 9 Nov. 7/5 In my opinion‥an undenominational system of religion, framed by or under the authority of the State, is a moral monster.
1964 S. M. Willhelm in I. L. Horowitz New Sociol. 184 The scientific ideology simply places the scientist in a moral vacuum.
1992 J. Torrington Swing Hammer Swing! xxii. 190 Let's face some home truths, Clay; you're a moral skunk.

1692—1992(Hide quotations)





d. Designating the incidental effect of an action or event (e.g. a victory or defeat) in producing confidence or discouragement, sympathy or hostility, etc. Cf. sense 8.

1835 A. Alison Hist. Europe IV. xxx. 261 The loss to the contending parties was nearly equal,‥but all the moral advantages of a victory were on their [sc. the French] side.
1860 J. S. Mill Considerations Representative Govt. (1865) 61 The instructed minority would, in the actual voting, count only for their numbers, but as a moral power they would count for much more.
1883 C. J. Wills In Land of Lion & Sun 111 Armenian‥scowls staggering along in secure insolence, confident in the moral protection given him by the presence of the Englishman.
1888 Times 13 June 6/1 His idea was that the moral effect of artillery fire was greater than the positive.
1901 Dict. National Biogr. at Victoria, Both the material and moral advantages that England derived from her intervention were long questioned.
1995 New Yorker 27 Mar. 62/1 Opposition to affirmative action has a second great advantage in today's political culture: it feeds that powerful hunger for the moral prestige and political spoils of victimhood.

1835—1995(Hide quotations)





4. Thesaurus »

a. Of a person, a person's conduct, etc.: morally good, virtuous; conforming to standards of morality.

c1443 R. Pecock Reule of Crysten Religioun (Morgan M 519) 211 Þou [sc. Christ] lividist a moral, holy lijf after lawe of kinde.
c1475 (1445) R. Pecock Donet 118/24 Alle þe dedis‥bi wordis writen in þo x comaundementis ben pure moral ech oon.
1582 R. Mulcaster 1st Pt. Elementarie xi. 55 Then will I set down som other well pikt discourse, which shall concern morall behauior.
1638 T. Herbert Some Yeares Trav. (rev. ed.) 233 Morall men they are, and humane in language and garbe.
1697 Dryden Ded. Æneis in tr. Virgil Wks. sig. a3, Your Essay of Poetry‥I read over and over with much delight,‥and, without flattering you, or making my self more Moral than I am, not without some Envy.
1700 Dryden Fables Pref. sig. *C^v, My Enemies‥will not allow me so much as to be a Christian, or a Moral Man.
1782 W. Cowper Conversation in Poems 222 A moral, sensible and well-bred man Will not affront me.
1841–8 F. Myers Catholic Thoughts II. iv. §23. 293 A man may be Moral without being Religious, but he cannot be Religious without being Moral.
1868 J. Ruskin Arrows of Chace (1880) II. 199 A man taught to plough, row or steer well‥[is] already educated in many essential moral habits.
1921 D. O. Stewart Parody Outl. of Hist. iv. 87 The Mayflower‥had landed its precious cargo of pious Right Thinkers, moral Gentlemen of God, and—Priscilla.
1990 D. Peterson Dress Gray Introd. 2, I just wanted to attend West Point:‥to live in a moral, disciplined environment under an internalized Honor code.

c1443—1990(Hide quotations)




Categories »

†b.spec. Characterized by virtues other than specifically religious ones. See moral virtue n. Obs.

1620 J. Ford Line of Life sig. F^v, Socrates‥a good man, if a meere morrall man may be termed so.
a1686 T. Watson Body Pract. Divinity (1692) 979 A Moral Man doth as much hate Holiness as he doth Vice.
1824 J. Hogg Private Mem. Justified Sinner 197 A Mr. Blanchard, who was reckoned a worthy, pious divine, but quite of the moral cast.

1620—1824(Hide quotations)




Thesaurus »

c. Virtuous with regard to sexual conduct; showing sexual morality. Freq. in moral restraint.

1803 T. R. Malthus Ess. Princ. Population (new ed.) iv. v. 523 The increase of vice which might contingently follow an attempt to inculcate the duty of moral restraint.
1806 T. R. Malthus Ess. Princ. Population (ed. 3) I. i. i. 19 By moral restraint I‥mean a restraint from marriage, from prudential motives, with a conduct strictly moral.
1820 Shelley Œdipus Tyrannusi. 74 Spay those Sows That load the earth with Pigs‥Moral restraint I see has no effect.
1879 ‘G. Eliot’ Theophrastus Such xvi. 283 Sir Gavial‥is a thoroughly moral man.‥ Very different from Mr. Barabbas, whose life‥is most objectionable, with actresses and that sort of thing.
1951 V. Nabokov Let. 12 Oct. in Sel. Lett. (1989) 128, I am engaged in the composition of a novel, which deals with the problems of a very moral middle-aged gentleman who falls very immorally in love with his stepdaughter, a girl of thirteen.
1991 S. Walker Rom. Art 33 The stola, a traditional female garment deliberately revived by Augustus as an expression of his policy of moral restraint upon members of the aristocracy.

1803—1991(Hide quotations)





5. Thesaurus »
Categories »

a. Designating the body of requirements to which an action must conform in order to be right or virtuous; (also) designating a particular requirement of this kind. Freq. in moral law.When applied to laws often contrasted with ‘positive’ or ‘instituted’ laws, the obligation of which depends solely on the fact that they have been imposed by a rightful authority (cf. natural law n.). In early use chiefly applied to those parts of the Mosaic Law which enunciate moral rather than ceremonial or juridical precepts and principles.

c1449 R. Pecock Repressor (1860) 13 Doom of natural resoun‥is clepid ‘moral law of kinde’.
a1450 (1397) Prol. Old Test. in Bible (Wycliffite, L.V.) (Harl. 1666) (1850) 3 The old testament is departid‥in to moral comaundementis, iudicials, and cerimonyals.
1551 T. Wilson Rule of Reason sig. Eij^v, The morall law standeth for euer,‥The Iudiciall law is next, the which‥we be not bound to obserue as the Israelites ware.
1609 Shakespeare Troilus & Cressidaii. ii. 183 If Helen then be wife to Sparta's King‥these morall lawes Of nature and of nations, speake alowd To haue her back returnd.
1640 W. Prynne Ld. Bishops viii. sig. Hiij^v, If the Prelates shall pronounce the 4th Commandement not to be Morall for the sanctifying of a Seventh day.
1690 J. Locke Ess. Humane Understandingi. iii. 15, I think it will be hard to instance any one moral Rule.
1736 Bp. J. Butler Analogy of Relig.ii. i. 157 The moral Law is‥interwoven into our very Nature.
1784 E. Allen Reason v. §2. 193 Nor is it possible that the Jews, who adhere to the law of Moses, should be under greater obligation to the moral law, than the Japannese; or the Christians than the Chinese.
1819 R. Hall Wks. (1841) V. 327 The laws given to the Israelites were of three kinds—ceremonial, judicial, and moral.
1876 L. Stephen Hist. Eng. Thought 18th Cent. II. ix. 5 Hobbes‥audaciously identified the moral with the positive law.
1927 Amer. Jrnl. Sociol. 32 736 The same forces which co-operate to create the characteristic social organization and the accepted moral order of a given society or social group determine at the same time‥the character of the individuals who compose that society.
1951 R. Firth Elem. Social Organization vi. 185 The effective standard of judgement‥has appeared to be the recognition of offences against a moral code of behaviour.
1994 N.Y. Rev. Bks. 12 May 16/2 There is an engaging search for a specific historic link to the followers of the seventeenth-century Ranter Ludowick Muggleton, with their‥furious rejections of the Mosaic Moral Law.

c1449—1994(Hide quotations)




Thesaurus »

b. Of a right, obligation, responsibility, etc.: founded on moral law; valid according to the principles of morality. Freq. contrasted with legal.

1690 J. Locke Ess. Humane Understandingii. xxvii. 156 Sometimes the foundation of considering Things, with reference to one another, is some act whereby any one comes by a Moral, Right, Power, or Obligation to do something.
1736 Bp. J. Butler Analogy of Relig.ii. Concl. 290 Our Obligation to attend to His Voice, is, surely, moral in all Cases.
1882 J. Morley Cobden (1902) xix. 71/1 Cobden thus strove to diffuse the sense of moral responsibility in connexion with the use of capital.
1924 R. W. Seton-Watson New Slovakia vi. 104 Such international opinion as regards the ‘Minority rights’ provided for by the Peace Treaties, as a moral obligation assumed by all members of the League of Nations.
1971 Universe 15 Oct. 19/3 [Where a legal right may be questionable] what cannot be denied is that he has a moral right—in fact a moral duty—to do so.

1690—1971(Hide quotations)





Thesaurus »

†6. Of or relating to manners and customs. Obs.

1604 E. G. tr. J. de Acosta (title) The Naturall and Morall Historie of the East and West Indies [Sp. Historia natural y moral de las Indias 1590].
1647 O. Cromwell in C. H. Firth Clarke Papers (1992) 370 If you make the best of itt, if you should change the Government to the best of itt, itt is but a morall thinge.

1604—1647(Hide quotations)




Thesaurus »

7. Of evidence, argument, etc.: based on a knowledge of the general tendencies of human nature, or of a particular person's character; probable rather than demonstrative, sufficient to justify practical certainty. Of a belief: held as practically certain. Freq. in moral certainty n. a degree of probability so great as to admit of no reasonable doubt; a practical certainty on the basis of moral evidence.The distinction between different degrees of certainty is made by Aristotle, who points out that moral philosophy cannot be discussed with the same insistence on proof as mathematics ( Nicomachaean Ethics 1094 b13), and is taken up in scholastic thought, e.g. by St Thomas Aquinas, who argues that a degree of certainty less than the highest is adequate for the conduct of human affairs ( Summa Theologica 1a 2ae. 96, 1). Although post-classical Latin moralis, moraliter have the sense ‘in or according to common usage’ as early as the 11th cent., they do not usually seem to be used of certainty in medieval authors. However, by the end of the 16th cent., if not earlier, the bases for assent to a truth could be classified as metaphysica, physica, or moralia, as they are by Francisco Suárez SJ ( Metaphysicae Disputationes 29, 3, 34–6), and post-classical Latin certitudo moralis is opposed to certitudo absoluta a1626 (A. Gazet, in Cassian's Collations xx. vii, in Cassian's Opera Omnia). Descartes uses Fr. moralement impossible to refer to a morally certain but not strictly demonstrable impossibility in the Discours de la Methode (1637), and refers to the arguments of the Principia as moraliter certa in the Latin text of 1644 (iv. §205), using French certitude morale at the corresponding point in the French text of 1647. From the mid 17th cent. onwards, the concept of moral certainty was applied to evidence in law and natural science as well as religion, and was defined with various degrees of precision, e.g. as a probability of at least 0.999 in Jakob Bernouilli's Ars Conjectandi (1713).

1637 W. Chillingworth Relig. Protestants iv. 224 It is impossible for any man (according to the grounds of your Religion) to know himselfe, much lesse another to be a true Pope, or a true Priest; nay to have a Morall certainty of it, because these things are obnoxious to innumerable secret and undiscernable nullities.
a1644 W. Chillingworth in R. R. Orr Reason & Authority (1967) iii. 51 The schools distinguish of two kinds of certainty; Metaphysical, whereby we know that a thing is so‥and Moral, whereby we are assured a thing is so.‥ Moral certainty, is begott in us, by presumption and probabilities.
1646 J. Maxwell Burden of Issachar in Phenix (1708) II. 276 That this is truth, I am as much assur'd of, as moral Certainty can assure any Man of moral Truth.
1660 Bp. J. Taylor Ductor Dubitantium I. i. v. 175 The Negative doubt is either Metaphysical or Moral, or it is onely a Suspicion.
a1676 M. Hale Primitive Originat. Mankind (1677) ii. i. 128 Though the evidence be still in its own nature but moral, and not simply demonstrative or infallible.
1685 tr. P. Nicole & A. Arnauld Logiclv. xv. 237 We ought to be satisfy'd with a moral assurance, in things not capable of Metaphysical certainty.
1692 R. L'Estrange Fables ccxci. 254 He‥so Parts with a Moral Certainty in Possession, for a Wild and a Remote Possibility in Reversion.
1725 I. Watts Logickii. ii. §9 In Matters of Faith, an exceeding great Probability is called a moral Certainty.
1728 E. Chambers Cycl. at Universality, Moral Universality, is that which admits of some exception.‥ In such-like propositions, 'tis enough that the thing be ordinarily so.
1743 H. Fielding Ess. Convers. in Misc. I. 137 When your Guest offers to go, there should be no Solicitations to stay‥farther than to give him a moral Assurance of his being welcome so to do.
1864 F. C. Bowen Treat. Logic xii. 378 The inference is rightly said to rest upon moral, or probable, evidence.
1868 E. A. Freeman Hist. Norman Conquest II. ix. 421 Was the succession of Harold merely a probability, a moral certainty it may be?
1911 Catholic Encycl. XII. 445/1 The only way efficiently to bring our actions into perfect harmony with objective morality is to follow the safe opinion, so long as the less safe opinion has not acquired moral certainty.
1994 Fellowship Catholic Scholars Newslet. Dec. 52/1 It enjoys moral certainty and consequently has a normative role in the formation of Christian conscience.

1637—1994(Hide quotations)




Thesaurus »
Categories »

†8. Of or relating to morale. Obs. rare.

1834 W. F. P. Napier Hist. War Peninsula IV. xvi. ii. 372 By this method lord Fitzroy acquired an exact knowledge of the true moral state of each regiment.
1889 D. Hannay Life F. Marryat 38 The squadron was in an indifferent moral condition, divided by sour professional factions, and impatient of its Admiral.

1834—1889

It's all about the metaphysics. If you believe in right and wrong then morality has nothing to do with empathy at all, it is about value, how it is assigned and what it's nature is, whether good or evil.

[Nowake]

Oi mister

I think you'll find that "secular" principles are generally based on deductive logic and balance/value judgements, not empathy.
If you believe in right and wrong then morality has nothing to do with empathy at all.
You're wrong anyway, not only is my absolutist view of morality shared by most religious people, it is also shared by many "secularists" and the New Athiests. About the only thing I agree with Richard Dawkins on is that there is good and evil in the world.

Again, you let your contempt get the better of you. Empathy is the one which allows secular principles to evolve their inchoate form into morality. Deductive logic then permits us to infer the behaviour of others based on our empathic experience of their feelings. Interestingly enough, the only category of people medically (and thus secularly) assessed as evil, sociopaths, are the only ones from whom empathy is absent; in fact, it is the absence of empathy which qualifies them as sociopaths in the first place.
As to your absolutist view of morality being shared by secularists and New Atheists as Dawkins, yet again a fact demonstrably false. Your reading of Dawkins is incomplete or superficial.
Dawkins on morality
2:05-2:22 Dawkins: As social animals, we worked out that we wouldn’t want to live in a society where it was acceptable to rape, murder or steal. We have a moral conscience a mutual empathy and it is constantly evolving.
4:05-4:25 Ian McEwan: We have a marvellous gift, and you see it develop in children, this ability to become aware that other people have minds just like your own and feelings that are just as important as your own. And this gift of empathy seems to me to be the building block of our moral system.
Dawkins: I profoundly agree with you.

Ever heard of the Bullingdon club? I can't speak for America and Woodstock but university students in the UK have a long history of Hooliganism, and like the "Buller" the difference between upper class hooligans and lower class ones is that in the former case his Pa might come round the next day and pay for the damages and offer something approaching an apology, if you're lucky.

Only incidental accounts, but what I heard was confirmed through internet search just now. So, on the one side, a small rich boys’ club whose excesses limit themselves to smashing windows and china during dinners for which they rent the locale full-time and for which they pay themselves on the spot in full and often in cash – financial capacity and the assuming of responsibility to pay for any potential damage being a requirement for joining the club. On the other, we have the often racist skinheads of the 70s which evolve into Burberry chavs, in large numbers part of the Ultra subculture now and whose destruction of public property is only a minor issue in comparison with other accomplishments such as murder (sometimes racially motivated), street-fighting and massive intimidation of their communities. Obviously, the later are totally revendicating themselves from the former.

I am not addressing our degeneracy-caused-by-casual-sex argument further, the reaction of other readers leads me to believe my point about what sexual liberty actually stands for has been made a few posts ago. Repeating it when it cannot be made any clearer only serves to annoy the both of us

[Sasaki Kojiro]

2:05-2:22 Dawkins: As social animals, we worked out that we wouldn’t want to live in a society where it was acceptable to rape, murder or steal. We have a moral conscience a mutual empathy and it is constantly evolving.
4:05-4:25 Ian McEwan: We have a marvellous gift, and you see it develop in children, this ability to become aware that other people have minds just like your own and feelings that are just as important as your own. And this gift of empathy seems to me to be the building block of our moral system.
Dawkins: I profoundly agree with you.

This is a very bizarre conversation

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oi mister

If you find my so dissagreeable you should stop adding ironic smilies, shouldn't you?

Again, you let your contempt get the better of you.

Insulting your interlocutor is a sign that you are either losing the argument or intellectually dishonest, and you just enjoy harrassing others.

Empathy is the one which allows secular principles to evolve their inchoate form into morality. Deductive logic then permits us to infer the behaviour of others based on our empathic experience of their feelings. Interestingly enough, the only category of people medically (and thus secularly) assessed as evil, sociopaths, are the only ones from whom empathy is absent; in fact, it is the absence of empathy which qualifies them as sociopaths in the first place.

This is a demostrably flawed premise. Without arbitary values assigned to entities and actions morality collapses, and your "empathetic" system fails on a practical front anyway. For example, from a purely utilitarian point of view you have no inherrent value other than that assigned to you be society at large, our empathy for you matters only so far as we care about you to begin with and your life and death can be happily decided without consequence if you are simply and profoundly unpopular. If no one likes you, most people will be happy you are dead and killing you will therefore upset fewer people than letting you live. In fact, if "empathy" is my moral guide and everyone hates you it behoves me to murder you for the good of society, or just dissapear you and cover it up so no one has to confront the fact I killed you.

Utterly absurd, but I can defend it logically, because the individual's happinness is worth less than the group, the only counter argument is that each human life is of equal worth (a logically indefensible claim without recourse to some arbitary non-realists definition of worth) and that each is counted individually, not collectively on a balance scale - such a claim would require an external "counter".

As to your absolutist view of morality being shared by secularists and New Atheists as Dawkins, yet again a fact demonstrably false. Your reading of Dawkins is incomplete or superficial.

Dawkins' reading of Dawkins is superficial, not withstanding a logical justification for morality based on natural philosophy, he believes in Good and Evil as absolutes, he says "thank goodnesss" instead of "thank God" because he believes there is goodness in the world. In fact, his continued opposition to all forms of religion is proof of this, because he persists in the face of evidence that religion is of net benefit.

Dawkins on morality
2:05-2:22 Dawkins: As social animals, we worked out that we wouldn’t want to live in a society where it was acceptable to rape, murder or steal. We have a moral conscience a mutual empathy and it is constantly evolving.
4:05-4:25 Ian McEwan: We have a marvellous gift, and you see it develop in children, this ability to become aware that other people have minds just like your own and feelings that are just as important as your own. And this gift of empathy seems to me to be the building block of our moral system.
Dawkins: I profoundly agree with you.

This is natural philosphy, not science, and it completely sidesteps the human capacity for violence (especially sexual) and the fact that we commit these acts because we have empathy. The purpose of cruetly is to cause suffereing and perfectly ordinary, sane, people can be extremely cruel under the right circumstances. Further, he is incorrect about the nature of "society", his charactarisation holds only in Christendom, where successive religious edicts sought to curb pagan practices. In many societies rape, murder and theft are perfectly acceptable. Ancient Sparta encouraged the young to steal, but not get caught; India included murderous cults to Shiva the destroyer; and in modern South Africa gang rape is used to punish Lesbians.

Empathy is morally neutral, the ability to employ empathy is a useful social tool, nothing more. It is utterly useless, for example, in this abortion debate because none of us can remember what it felt like to be a feotus.

Only incidental accounts, but what I heard was confirmed through internet search just now. So, on the one side, a small rich boys’ club whose excesses limit themselves to smashing windows and china during dinners for which they rent the locale full-time and for which they pay themselves on the spot in full and often in cash – financial capacity and the assuming of responsibility to pay for any potential damage being a requirement for joining the club. On the other, we have the often racist skinheads of the 70s which evolve into Burberry chavs, in large numbers part of the Ultra subculture now and whose destruction of public property is only a minor issue in comparison with other accomplishments such as murder (sometimes racially motivated), street-fighting and massive intimidation of their communities. Obviously, the later are totally revendicating themselves from the former.

Well, Chavs have nothing to do with Skinheads, and the Bullers only pay for the physical damage they cause, they don't even consider the emotional or phychological damage, which is the same as hooligans.

I am not addressing our degeneracy-caused-by-casual-sex argument further, the reaction of other readers leads me to believe my point about what sexual liberty actually stands for has been made a few posts ago. Repeating it when it cannot be made any clearer only serves to annoy the both of us

In other words, you can't demonstrate that your one night stands haven't been with persons who were already in relationships, but you're too proud to admit you might be the dirty secret in someone else's marriage?

[Nowake]

Oi mister

If you find my so dissagreeable you should stop adding ironic smilies, shouldn't you? (...)
Insulting your interlocutor is a sign that you are either losing the argument or intellectually dishonest, and you just enjoy harrassing others. (...)

In other words, you can't demonstrate that your one night stands haven't been with persons who were already in relationships, but you're too proud to admit you might be the dirty secret in someone else's marriage?

Now hold your horses PVC; if you think I crossed a line by debating your views and my replies are harassing you, I honestly apologise. I do not find you disagreeable, I simply disagree with you. If you request my personal impression of you, I can at most say I find you a tad backward, but certainly I do not dislike you.
Moreover, the emoticons I add to my introductions are never, ever ironic. I greeted you and then gave you the ok sign, it was a polite and friendly way to start.
Writing that you show contempt is not an insult PVC, you do hold moral relativists in contempt, you have done everything but use the exact word to show it. I was simply stating that your passionate contempt towards them is leading you to bias, which was my impression.

Your last remark is though very personal. How do those chaps who like to fancy themselves as cultured debaters without having ever read Rhetoric in school never fail to polish it? Ad hominem I think. I forgive the rudeness, but it shows lack of character and such a feeble attempt at showing a grasp of basic psychology that I am now suspecting you do, in fact, have profound empathy issues.

And to clarify, I am not continuing that specific line of the debate because this is a thread on a gaming forum. Its subject was mildly controversial and I had an opinion about it, hence I wanted to state it. Once I feel I’ve done a thorough job of expressing myself, I have to stop because you are not paying me for these lectures and I cannot simply write essays upon essays for rested minds who wish to “win” an argument.
You’re a Christian who thinks sexual liberty is sinful. I’d be in the same situation if I’d try to convince a Muslim about the existence of the female soul. I’ve never wanted to cause you to stray from your path, I simply wanted to insert a different viewpoint in the thread. The merits of which are to be decided by our readers, towards whom I’ve already done my utmost to be understood.




It must be said that claiming to understand Richard Dawkin’s points of view better than himself is really taking it to the next level. Simply stating that he believes goodness exists in the world does not imply that he does not think goodness is developed from empathy. It is what he actually says in those quotes I provided you with after all.

This is natural philosphy, not science, and it completely sidesteps the human capacity for violence (especially sexual) and the fact that we commit these acts because we have empathy. The purpose of cruetly is to cause suffereing and perfectly ordinary, sane, people can be extremely cruel under the right circumstances.

Well we were talking about Richard Dawkins’ views, and those of the New Atheists. You claimed they understood good and evil in the same way you did. At no point were we discussing their scientific positions, but their opinions on morality, I was showing you that they place themselves on the complete opposite side.

Cruelty can be displayed by ordinary people and empathy helps you understand pain and thus, how to cause it. And then, which is the absolutely mind-reconstructing & society-defining action which empathy sears into our brains as a seething need? Justification. Empathy forces us to justify ourselves; to explain to ourselves why we’ve acted as we did, because we know, we understand intimately the pain we’ve caused and cannot live with it without reasoning it as part of a Moral standpoint. Croatian ustashas threw Serbian two-year olds in the air and caught them in their knives before hitting the ground in front of their mothers, but they would’ve first blown their brains out before doing that to a random Italian family. The Serbs were Orthodox. Blasphemers. You had to torture them for their sins against your God. Justification. Empathy requires it before suppressing your humanity. And when this rationalisation creates an entire System of Justifications, we have Morality. We draw a straight line.

Further, he is incorrect about the nature of "society", his charactarisation holds only in Christendom, where successive religious edicts sought to curb pagan practices. In many societies rape, murder and theft are perfectly acceptable.

Odd to see you agreeing with my previous point where I stated that:

While morality is abstractly presumed good, the fact that good is itself defined by each society means that it simply encompasses the principles of a community, be they righteous or destructive. Since a cohesive group naturally agrees with its own set of morals, being described as a moral person is always accompanied by a misleading positive connotation. In fact, morality goes both ways and being immoral stands only for disagreeing with the community, the value of your impact is irrelevant.

Finally, I got something right according to you as well, societies do define their own good and evil after all.
I know I know, while you agree on that, you also think that there is some actually genuine notion of good and evil out there which is the only one worth being adopted by human beings.
Yes. There is. I've never disputed that. I just think we are able to sometimes grasp what it truly means to be Good due to the mind-altering effects of empathy which haunts us to justify in any way, even by deluding ourselves, actions we’d be horrified to experience ourselves. It leads us to develop secular principles. You just think that’s God.
The amusing part is that those good-and-evil-defining-societies combine our viewpoints marvellously: their delusion is that their empathy is to be suppressed because that woman's rape is justified by God. Opposing the rape thus makes you immoral, a point I was making in an earlier reply.

Empathy is morally neutral, the ability to employ empathy is a useful social tool, nothing more. It is utterly useless, for example, in this abortion debate because none of us can remember what it felt like to be a feotus.

Uhmm empathy is a lot more complex. It does not only employ emotional recognition, it creates self-reflective perspectives through imagination. It’s a fairly well researched phenomenon.
But that was merely to address your inaccuracy when presuming that one needs to have previously experienced an emotion in order to understand it. What bothers is that you think empathy is irrelevant because it doesn’t explain the foetus. It does explain to us the gravida.

Bullers only pay for the physical damage they cause, they don't even consider the emotional or phychological damage, which is the same as hooligans.

Really? The emotional and psychological damage they provoke to the owners of the vandalised joints who willingly rent them to them beforehand while fully aware of the club’s reputation? Hmm, nice touch there.
Very similar emotional and psychological damage to the one lower-class english hooligans inflicted upon the Italian spectators on the Heysel Stadium when their attack caused 39 people to be crushed to death.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Now hold your horses PVC; if you think I crossed a line by debating your views and my replies are harassing you, I honestly apologise. I do not find you disagreeable, I simply disagree with you. If you request my personal impression of you, I can at most say I find you a tad backward, but certainly I do not dislike you.

Moreover, the emoticons I add to my introductions are never, ever ironic. I greeted you and then gave you the ok sign, it was a polite and friendly way to start.
Writing that you show contempt is not an insult PVC, you do hold moral relativists in contempt, you have done everything but use the exact word to show it. I was simply stating that your passionate contempt towards them is leading you to bias, which was my impression.

Telling me I show contempt is one thing, you said I have contempt. You are not qualified to say that, because you aren't inside my head. I find your view of morality disagreeable, and I think you use it to justify a type of behaviour I find distasteful, but that does not mean I hold moral relativists in contempt. It is simply the fact that I believe you are profoundly wrong and therefore I resist you profoundly.

Your last remark is though very personal. How do those chaps who like to fancy themselves as cultured debaters without having ever read Rhetoric in school never fail to polish it? Ad hominem I think. I forgive the rudeness, but it shows lack of character and such a feeble attempt at showing a grasp of basic psychology that I am now suspecting you do, in fact, have profound empathy issues.

You have included two Ad Hominems here, that I am uneducated and that I may be a sociopath. The worst that I have said of you is that you are refusing to engage with my point that if you have a one night stand you cannot know the other person's social situation other than by their report. You are obviously an intelligent and educated man, so you must realise this. Accusing you of a deliberate lack of self reflection is, admittedly, an Ad Hominem but a very mild one. I am not accusing you of a genuine failure of character.

On the other hand, accusing me of a lack empathy - I can now accuse you of a lack of empathy, and we can go around and around until I get on a plane to Romania, or you get on to one to England and we end up with someone skewered on the end of a rapier; but I'd rather not, and not because the flight is expensive.

As regards education in rhetoric, Cicero is one of my favourite Latin authors.

You’re a Christian who thinks sexual liberty is sinful.

Did I say that? I think you'll find I said that I was opposed to casual sex between strangers because it was irresponsible.

I'm not Saint Augustine, I'm actually ok with sex.

I’d be in the same situation if I’d try to convince a Muslim about the existence of the female soul. I’ve never wanted to cause you to stray from your path, I simply wanted to insert a different viewpoint in the thread. The merits of which are to be decided by our readers, towards whom I’ve already done my utmost to be understood.

I do not understand the concept of debating as a spectator sport, and I do not, generally, play to the crowd.

It must be said that claiming to understand Richard Dawkin’s points of view better than himself is really taking it to the next level. Simply stating that he believes goodness exists in the world does not imply that he does not think goodness is developed from empathy. It is what he actually says in those quotes I provided you with after all.

If you read Dawkins carefully you will see that he often, if not always, refers to "good and evil" in the abstract, this is not a matter of his personal opinion only, it is very clearly something he believes to be embedded in reality.

Well we were talking about Richard Dawkins’ views, and those of the New Atheists. You claimed they understood good and evil in the same way you did. At no point were we discussing their scientific positions, but their opinions on morality, I was showing you that they place themselves on the complete opposite side.

The problem is that this view is presented as "scientific", but it is really a blending of natural and moral philosophy. Read Dawkins and you see that he believes everything stems from our genes, but he consistently make imaginative leaps to try and connect his, essentially quite duelistic philosophy, to his monistic scientific realism. For example, he has claimed that belief in God is an inherited survival trait independent of any deity, but he also claims we have now outgrown this belief - we can transcend our genetics. On the one hand man is as he should be, because he follows his deterministic genes, on the other he should be more than he currently is and change his nature, in contravention of his genes.

There is a logical and philosophical canyon there.

Cruelty can be displayed by ordinary people and empathy helps you understand pain and thus, how to cause it. And then, which is the absolutely mind-reconstructing & society-defining action which empathy sears into our brains as a seething need? Justification. Empathy forces us to justify ourselves; to explain to ourselves why we’ve acted as we did, because we know, we understand intimately the pain we’ve caused and cannot live with it without reasoning it as part of a Moral standpoint. Croatian ustashas threw Serbian two-year olds in the air and caught them in their knives before hitting the ground in front of their mothers, but they would’ve first blown their brains out before doing that to a random Italian family. The Serbs were Orthodox. Blasphemers. You had to torture them for their sins against your God. Justification. Empathy requires it before suppressing your humanity. And when this rationalisation creates an entire System of Justifications, we have Morality. We draw a straight line.

So your morality can be used to justify causing suffering? Mine can't. To be clear, if you justify something you are say it is good. I do not agree that vicious cruelty requires the "suppression" of humanity, that implies a transcendent quality to human nature that is at odds with an avowedly secular and realist worldview. I sounds like nothing so much as the sort of thin a religious man says about his God-given conscience.

It is also generally true that the decision comes before the rationalization. Croatians kills Serbs because they hate them, they justify that hate on religious grounds, but it is obvious that Romans and Greeks can coexist, and generally have across history. The fact is, our capacity for empathy is not a "moral" faculty, it is merely something we use to justify some of the decisions we make - it represents out affective preferences, how we feel, and in that sense it is no more a justification for action than Divine Edict, which claims to be God's preference.

Odd to see you agreeing with my previous point where I stated that:

While morality is abstractly presumed good, the fact that good is itself defined by each society means that it simply encompasses the principles of a community, be they righteous or destructive. Since a cohesive group naturally agrees with its own set of morals, being described as a moral person is always accompanied by a misleading positive connotation. In fact, morality goes both ways and being immoral stands only for disagreeing with the community, the value of your impact is irrelevant.

That different societies have different moral codes is not in dispute, their relative value is.

Finally, I got something right according to you as well, societies do define their own good and evil after all.
I know I know, while you agree on that, you also think that there is some actually genuine notion of good and evil out there which is the only one worth being adopted by human beings.
Yes. There is. I've never disputed that. I just think we are able to sometimes grasp what it truly means to be Good due to the mind-altering effects of empathy which haunts us to justify in any way, even by deluding ourselves, actions we’d be horrified to experience ourselves. It leads us to develop secular principles.

OK, you have completely lost me. Objective values require a valuator. To say that:

You just think that’s God.

Just indicates that you have not considered what "God" is, philosophically speaking. Further more, to argue for objective values invalidates your argument viz empathy because an empathetic moral system requires that at least one person in a society to apprehend the objective moral good before empathy can operate on the given question. For example, if everyone thinks infanticide if fine there is not empathetic element to whether or not it is moral. Infanticide first has to upset someone before empathy can be used as a justification for not killing babies, because it upsets their parents.

The amusing part is that those good-and-evil-defining-societies combine our viewpoints marvellously: their delusion is that their empathy is to be suppressed because that woman's rape is justified by God. Opposing the rape thus makes you immoral, a point I was making in an earlier reply.

This implies they don't want to rape the woman, I contend that they do want to rape her because she threatens their masculinity; the hatred is a result of their emotional response and using "Divine Will" to justify it is just a sideshow. The point is that human being are inherently capable of cruelty, and their empathy alone does not prevent them acting out their malicious desires. In order for empathy to come into play those men must first acknowledge that the woman is of equal value, and not sub-human because only then will they empathize with her.

Her value must be recognised.

Uhmm empathy is a lot more complex. It does not only employ emotional recognition, it creates self-reflective perspectives through imagination. It’s a fairly well researched phenomenon.
But that was merely to address your inaccuracy when presuming that one needs to have previously experienced an emotion in order to understand it. What bothers is that you think empathy is irrelevant because it doesn’t explain the foetus. It does explain to us the gravida.

What you are really talking about, then, is empathy and sympathy. Empathy is the understanding of another's emotions, sympathy is sharing them. Empathy is the tool you use to engage sympathetically, one can have one without the other, both ways.

Really? The emotional and psychological damage they provoke to the owners of the vandalised joints who willingly rent them to them beforehand while fully aware of the club’s reputation? Hmm, nice touch there.
Very similar emotional and psychological damage to the one lower-class english hooligans inflicted upon the Italian spectators on the Heysel Stadium when their attack caused 39 people to be crushed to death.

This is a rationalisation of the Bullers, they do vandalise randomly as well. In any case, they are just a more recent manifestation of the callous young aristocrat, the lord's son you rape the farmer's daughter and then pays the father for the "whore".