Hey PVC
Quote Originally Posted by 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.