The Porn Thread

[CRASHiC]

DISCLAIMER TO MODS: I WAS UNCERTAIN ABOUT STARTING THIS DEBATE. I ASSUMED BECAUSE IT WOULD BE TO DISCUSS THE EFFECTS OF PORN AMONGST ITS MANY OTHER ODDITIES THAT IT WOULD BE OKAY TO POST THIS SINCE ITS NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PORN ITSELF BUT EVERYTHING AROUND IT. IF SUCH AN EXCEPTION CAN NOT BE MADE, LOCK, MOVE, REMOVE THIS THREAD, DO WHAT YOU MUST, I WILL HAVE NO QUARREL WITH IT. SIMPLY PLEASE DON'T INFRACT ME.

Porn is a funny thing. It's been around for centuries, carved in wood, in explicit oriental art and, as soon as the camera was invented, on film. In fact the porn industry has driven the success of various formats including the VHS tape.
Today the porn industry is one of the biggest in the world (2nd I think to the drugs trade). It's ubiquity is felt in every country and yet a few years ago it was nowhere: no one spoke of it, people just pretended it didn't exist (and still do). It's such a large industry that almost every investment company has shares in it as well as TV channels, phone networks and banks.

It's a lot like doing a **** in that no one speaks of it yet we all do it, at least the men do anyway. A scientific investigation was carried out a few years ago to determine what effects pornography has on the male population, especially teenagers. It was scrapped when they discovered that there isn't a man out there in the Western world who hasn't watched porn! Like doing a dump, people don't talk about it because it conjures up uncomfortable images. Before I was old enough to have seen any porn my mother used to tell me that only lonely, desperate men watch porn and I think that's why it's been a dirty secret for so long. Today it's no longer thought that porn is just for the guy who can't score because it's well known that guys watch porn when their girlfriends are out or when their wives are asleep.

New technology means that the new generation are growing up watching extremely explicit porn and there's no way to censor it as all forms of media supply it. What effect will it have on them? Will porn ever go mainstream? Will there ever be 'high class' porn or is that not in its nature?
One big problem people have with porn is that it enforces stereotypes and objectifies women. Does this have a negative effect on people like violent video games are thought to? Some people actually argue that it empowers women.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Pornography is such a vast subject that you can read anything into it that you want. It simultaneously does everything that people says it does: it objectifies women while empowering them; it's already in the mainstream (look at the success of a Jenny McCarthy or Tera Patrick) while being relegated to "open secret" status. It's way too broad to try to fit into any category or conclusion.

My objection to porn begins and ends with consent. As long as all parties involved in its commission and production are consenting adults, then I don't have a problem with anything that porn does.

 

[Sucumbio]

Girls Gone Wild. That's what's become of the porn industry. Sure the net made it bigger than ever, way bigger than VHS which was the previous title holder. Bigger than mags... but GGW is a keen example of what the hypersexualization of America has led to. There's been a marked decrease over the last 20 years in the inhibitions of teens and young adults. Sex in mainstream culture has become so prevalent that we're starting to bridge the gap between what's culturally acceptable here, and what is in Europe. Now true, we don't have full frontal nudity in shampoo commercials yet. But we do have couples engaging in foreplay and while in underwear.

There's another highly insidious design in today's porn. To attract perverts (because they are plenty and have money to spend) many porn industry members resort to artificially augmenting the age of the subject matter. If you look at porn from the 70s and 80s and compare it to today's porn, you'll see that the talent looks very different. Before they were real women. Today they are 'barely legal' teens. One women actually brought this up on Henry Rollins' show but was laughed off the stage because she "went there" and pointed out the possible difficulties a father may have when they notice their daughter looking a lot like their porn material. Now true this is fairly awful to state and perhaps overstated, but she did touch on something that's real... sex sells, and sex with apparent minors sells even better. Just looking at the results of Dateline NBC - To Catch A Predator With Chris Hansen, yeah these guys are your everyday males and from all walks of life, but they all have one thing in common. They're mainly born between 1970 and 1985 and they all want to have sex with minors.

 

[GoldShadow]

My objection to porn begins and ends with consent. As long as all parties involved in its commission and production are consenting adults, then I don't have a problem with anything that porn does.

I agree with you, but what about those who are coerced into giving consent? I don't mean coerced by another person or threatened by another person but rather, by financial pressure or something? Those who are forced into it in order to pay the bills?

 

[Dre89]

I'm not sure I agree with the "as long as two people consent it's ok", I know it's a modern thing but I still think it has bad implications.

For example when a man consented to being killed and eaten by another man, the cannibal still got charged.

So what I'm saying is that I don't think mutual consent makes the practice permissable. I think you have to show that the act and nature of porn is a good, or at least permissable.

PS. Crashic I don't watch porn.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I agree with you, but what about those who are coerced into giving consent? I don't mean coerced by another person or threatened by another person but rather, by financial pressure or something? Those who are forced into it in order to pay the bills?

The economic forces that would coerce someone into pornography are far outside the realm of porn itself, and that's a different topic. Besides, my stance on consent is that participants agree to the specific sex acts to be performed and video taped, not whether or not they agree that this is what they said they wanted to be when they grew up.

I'm not sure I agree with the "as long as two people consent it's ok", I know it's a modern thing but I still think it has bad implications.

For example when a man consented to being killed and eaten by another man, the cannibal still got charged.

So what I'm saying is that I don't think mutual consent makes the practice permissable. I think you have to show that the act and nature of porn is a good, or at least permissable.

PS. Crashic I don't watch porn.

That's the exact kind of argument that led to sodomy being illegal, and I don't know about you, but I have a problem with other people telling me what I can and cannot do with my wife in our own home.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Dre, also keep in mind that killing and eating people is illegal, and two adults having consensual sex is not. So, in other words, mutual consent makes a legal practice permissible.

 

[Dre89]

But that's my point, you can't defend porn on the grounds of mutual consent, because mutual consent can still lead to wrong practices.

The problem is here is that if I wanted to defend my position, that pornography is wrong and that it is unnatural, it will just get countered by relativism (there are so many relativists in the DH lol), then it takes walls of text to counter relativism.

 

[KrazyGlue]

But that's my point, you can't defend porn on the grounds of mutual consent, because mutual consent can still lead to wrong practices.

Mutual consent can only lead to wrong practices if the practices are illegal. Consensual sex between adults is not illegal, so if they agree upon it, there's nothing wrong about it. Your point doesn't apply since this is a perfectly legal action that two adults agree to do.

 

[Faithkeeper]

Morality and such aside, I think it's wise to avoid things that can addict you. Not all who watch porn get addicted, but some certainly do. I assume pornography is generally viewed in conjunction with masturbation, often ending in an orgasm, one of the, if not the (from what I've read it is) body's most powerful reinforces. By applying the concept of conditioning, it is not difficult to see how one could very easily become addicted to pornography.

It may also be relevant to mention the aversive affects viewing pornography can have on the developing brain. I cannot confirm that pornography targets under-aged individuals (perhaps through the "barely legal" means Sucumbio mentioned earlier) and it surely seems the case here,but I have little doubt that they can stumble upon such material without intention regardless. Children exposed to pornography may sustain similar psychological damage as if they were sexually abused. While laws are in place to protect children from being the subjects of or viewing pornographic material, I don't think anyone would disagree that if pornography were banned, it would reduce the viewing of it by underage individuals who may sustain psychological damage from the aforementioned viewing of pornographic material.

If the undeveloped child brain is psychopharmacologically altered by pornographic
stimuli during waking and sleeping, this would violate claims of informed consent as it
structurally alters the neurochemistry of the child’s brain, the child’s sense of self and of reality.
Children react with fear to the stimulus of
sexual touch and sexual scenes. Fear is a necessary
reaction by the normal child organism to sexual
stimuli, for their immaturity leaves the child
completely without the cognitive or emotional tools to
respond to sexual cues or touch.

Children’s exposure to sexual triggers would
produce greater or lesser states of alarm, that is
trauma, resulting in “altered neural systems” with a
low probability of the child victim being aware of the
trauma that has altered her or his brain, mind,
emotions and memory. A specialist in child trauma,
Bruce Perry, M.D., Ph.D., discusses child sexual abuse as setting off alarm mechanisms in
children that impair the victimized child’s cognitive and emotional development.

[v_later in her essay_v]

Ordinarily if we are frightened we feel the fear implicitly and know explicitly
what has caused it. …[But] fear can be learned without consciousness--we can
feel fearful but without knowing why….Although anxieties are easy to acquire,
once their brain circuits are established they are difficult or impossible to
delete…..The brain also begins to initiate physical responses (heart palpitations,
sweaty palms, muscle tension) before we become aware of an associated feeling
of fear.

So child exposure to pornography carries with it the risk of developing an anxiety disorder or impairing a child's cognitive or emotional development. I'm not sure that banning pornography is the answer, but perhaps something could be done to strengthen the security of those site against minors. It is my understanding that online gambling sites require more than a warning that you must be 18 to enter for one to gain access to the site. Perhaps something similar could be done in the porn industry.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yeah, I'm completely against banning porn, but I don't see anything wrong with tightening security on pornographic sites, as the material is intended for adults. (Although, to be honest, there will probably always be pornographic material somewhere in the internet that is not effectively hidden from minors.)

 

[Faithkeeper]

(Although, to be honest, there will probably always be pornographic material somewhere in the internet that is not effectively hidden from minors.)

Of course, My #1 goal would to be to make it very difficult to stumble upon (a kid searching for his favorite board game, candyland who went to the website with that name would have found something a little different than what he and his family played). Also, I'd sure it could be found out there somewhere if security were to be tightened, but I think at the age one would be able to find it (I'd guess puberty? I didn't use the internet much before then) pornographic material would no longer have the traumatic effect it might have on an individual a few years younger. And the article I sourced all that from didn't define "child" that I remember, but puberty seems like a logical distinction to me.

 

[Dre89]

Mutual consent can only lead to wrong practices if the practices are illegal. Consensual sex between adults is not illegal, so if they agree upon it, there's nothing wrong about it. Your point doesn't apply since this is a perfectly legal action that two adults agree to do.

It does apply depending on what that question of the thread is. If it's concerning the ethics of porn, then it is relevant because although sex is legal, that doesn't guarantee that any use of it is moral.

But again, the problem with my position is that it takes far too long, and far too much of a digression to develop the argument.

I will say though that porn is defintiely an objectiification of the woman, regardless if she wants to do it. Even just casual sex is an objectification because the woman is used merely as a tool to gratify sexual desires.

With either porn or casual sex, the only mutual appreciation is lust, and if that desire cannot be gratified then the relationhsip, be it professional or casual, no longer has any prupose. The fact that a relationship will dissolve merely because a bodily end can no longer be achieved speaks volumes about the character of the relationship in the first place.

Again, this isn't my strongest argument, just a quicker more convenient one suitable for this thread.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yeah, I'm not going to go into morals, since they really can't be objectively argued. I do agree that in the vast majority of (if not all) cases, porn objectifies women. I suppose you could argue that all people involved are objectified because, like you said, the only mutual appreciation is lust.

 

[Jam Stunna]

It does apply depending on what that question of the thread is. If it's concerning the ethics of porn, then it is relevant because although sex is legal, that doesn't guarantee that any use of it is moral.

But again, the problem with my position is that it takes far too long, and far too much of a digression to develop the argument.

I will say though that porn is defintiely an objectiification of the woman, regardless if she wants to do it. Even just casual sex is an objectification because the woman is used merely as a tool to gratify sexual desires.

With either porn or casual sex, the only mutual appreciation is lust, and if that desire cannot be gratified then the relationhsip, be it professional or casual, no longer has any prupose. The fact that a relationship will dissolve merely because a bodily end can no longer be achieved speaks volumes about the character of the relationship in the first place.

Again, this isn't my strongest argument, just a quicker more convenient one suitable for this thread.

So a woman doesn't gain anything from a casual sexual relationship?

 

[Dre89]

She does the same thing a man does- use person as a means to gratify sexual desire.

 

[Dre89]

Sorry for the double post.

Yeah, I'm not going to go into morals, since they really can't be objectively argued. I do agree that in the vast majority of (if not all) cases, porn objectifies women. I suppose you could argue that all people involved are objectified because, like you said, the only mutual appreciation is lust.

Morals can be objectively argued, as long as you have some evidence that that is supposed to be the way we act, rather than just some complex theory which appears to be contrary to common sense and isn't evidenced in human nature at all.

People assume that because they're not convinced by any mroal theory, that that is sufficient grounds for relativism, which isn't true at all.

The ideas of cultural relativism (that morality is just what you're society deems it to be) or it's that you can do anything as long as you don't harm others are both self-defeating positions.

The reason why I don't want to go into it is as I've said before, it's too long and too much of a digression.

 

[RDK]

Morals can be objectively argued, as long as you have some evidence that that is supposed to be the way we act, rather than just some complex theory which appears to be contrary to common sense and isn't evidenced in human nature at all

How can you cite evidence for a "should"?

Is there a "right" way to construct a building? Not really. It depends on the situation, like virtually everything else in life. Morality is a system we use to deal with one another. Arguing objective morality is like arguing which color is best.

And I wish you would elaborate on your position; that's the point of having a debate.

 

[Dre89]

It's not the point of a porn thread. In my abortion thread I challenged Guest's relativism if you wanna look at it there.

Long story short, the 'evidence' is found in what is natural, but it's too long to go into here.

I don't take many modern people's relativism arguments seriously because morality has been destroyed in modern society and it no longer means anything. People in today's society see morality only as a means to preserve social order, not something intrinsic to human nature.

The fact that morality nowadays is only about what society deems it to be is why so many people are turning relative, because they think morality is just artificial, something we just make up.

As I've said before, if my idea of morality was as reduced as the modern one I'd probably be relativist too.

As for the problem with reducing morality to just not harming others against their own will, this is why it is self-defeating-

Implication- There need to be no goods upheld if they don't harm others. In other words, principles such as abstanation from sex aren't objective goods.

So we arrive at a position where there are no objective goods, until-

"As long as you don't harm somone against their will"- an objective good.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I don't take many modern people's relativism arguments seriously because morality has been destroyed in modern society and it no longer means anything. People in today's society see morality only as a means to preserve social order, not something intrinsic to human nature.

Morality is not intrinsic to human nature. There is nothing "intrinsic" to human nature. Morality is exactly how you described it: a system to govern how we relate to and treat each other. Whether you believe in objective morality or relativism, in the end it's still based on when and where you live, and the people around you.

The problem that I have with your position on sex is that it's ultimately inconsistent. We objectify and commodify everyone based on their use to us. An athlete is an object of entertainment, as is an actor, singer, etc. We don't really care about their personal lives, and they don't expect us to. They play, we watch. That's the agreement.

How does this arrangement, which exists in every facet of our life, suddenly become immoral when it's applied to sexuality? If two people willingly agree to objectify each other for sexual gratification, why is that immoral? You've said that pornography and casual sex violates your system of objective morality, but what exactly is violated?

Most of the posts in this thread deal with the negative effects that pornography have on people without explicitly stating what those negative effects are. What are they? We may take it for granted that porn is bad for kids, but why is it bad for consenting adults?

 

[RDK]

One thing I'd like to point out is that what is "natural" has no bearing on what is deemed "good" or "bad". Animals killing and consuming other animals for nourishment is completely natural. Can I then make the case that I can kill you and eat you because it's intrinsic to my animal nature?

 

[KrazyGlue]

To claim to objectively know morals is to claim omniscience. As Jam said, you and I have different moral values based on our respective environments and education. There is no evidence of how we're "supposed to act". Who determines how we're "supposed to act"?

 

[blazedaces]

To claim to objectively know morals is to claim omniscience. As Jam said, you and I have different moral values based on our respective environments and education. There is no evidence of how we're "supposed to act". Who determines how we're "supposed to act"?

Sorry, but I disagree.

Who determines that it's not moral to murder? When? How?

The point is many people have had this discussion. Just because there isn't one "always" answer doesn't mean that EVERY answer is acceptable.

-blazed

 

[KrazyGlue]

But morals are just someone's opinion. So what if the vast majority of people agree on it? That doesn't mean they're objectively right. nobody can objectively know what is "right" or "wrong" unless you believe in God (in which case God is the only one who knows such things).

 

[RDK]

I keep seeing people post about knowing what is objectively right or wrong as if such a thing is possible.

In one of my earlier posts I compared declaring an objective morality system to declaring that one color is the best. It's a non sequitur.

 

[blazedaces]

But morals are just someone's opinion. So what if the vast majority of people agree on it? That doesn't mean they're objectively right. nobody can objectively know what is "right" or "wrong" unless you believe in God (in which case God is the only one who knows such things).

Morals are defined as a set of beliefs about what is "right" and "wrong". Ethics is when you apply reason to determine a more systematic view on what is "right" and "wrong".

Guys, just because you're all moral relativists doesn't mean everyone else is as well. No one thinks genocide is right without question. No one believes that murder is always justified. No one wants to live in a world where "right" and "wrong" are as arbitrary for people as whether to pick "pink" or "blue" to where to work today... so stop pretending that you do!

-blazed

 

[KrazyGlue]

Morals are defined as a set of beliefs about what is "right" and "wrong". Ethics is when you apply reason to determine a more systematic view on what is "right" and "wrong".

Yes. Beliefs. Opinions. Not facts.

Guys, just because you're all moral relativists doesn't mean everyone else is as well. No one thinks genocide is right without question. No one believes that murder is always justified. No one wants to live in a world where "right" and "wrong" are as arbitrary for people as whether to pick "pink" or "blue" to where to work today... so stop pretending that you do!

-blazed

Actually, I'm betting plenty of the people committing genocide/murder believe what they are doing is right. I don't want society to be lawless; I'm just saying morals are subjective. I have said nothing about whether we should base laws off of moral beliefs.

 

[blazedaces]

Yes. Beliefs. Opinions. Not facts.

So Ethics are objective and Morals are subjective? Why do you think I distinguished the two?

Actually, I'm betting plenty of the people committing genocide/murder believe what they are doing is right. I don't want society to be lawless; I'm just saying morals are subjective. I have said nothing about whether we should base laws off of moral beliefs.

They believe it is only right "under certain circumstances". You have to agree that some things in ethics are obvious while with others there sometimes is a questionable line we must draw... but that doesn't necessarily mean it's completely subjective.

Not everyone agrees on everything in physics... does that mean physics is subjective all of a sudden?

-blazed

 

[Jam Stunna]

The things that aren't agreed upon are by definition subjective

 

[KrazyGlue]

So Ethics are objective and Morals are subjective? Why do you think I distinguished the two?

They believe it is only right "under certain circumstances". You have to agree that some things in ethics are obvious while with others there sometimes is a questionable line we must draw... but that doesn't necessarily mean it's completely subjective.

Not everyone agrees on everything in physics... does that mean physics is subjective all of a sudden?

-blazed

No, both ethics and morals are subjective. There's no "systematic" way to determine what is right or wrong.

While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity or subject.

As for the physics comparison, physics is subjective, as is all science.

Objectivity does not exist in science due to the fact that all scientific methods and measurements are based on human tools and ideas, but objective truths about the natural world in math, science, humanities and all fields of study are what humans look for within subjective means.

Also what may seem "obvious" to you isn't at all to others. There have been people in history who have no moral issue with killing people on a whim. The DC sniper is a good example. He just killed random people for seemingly no reason other than being angry at life.

 

[RDK]

The things that aren't agreed upon are by definition subjective

I remember a post Alt made a while ago that said basically the same thing.

I'm pretty sure it was a religious discussion, but the gist of his post was that "Doesn't the fact that we're even arguing about this [morality, ethics, etc.] show that there's no objective morality?".

 

[blazedaces]

The things that aren't agreed upon are by definition subjective

Show me one thing that you claim is "objective"and I'll show you something that people have disagreed about at one point. This is a horrible definition. According to this, all statements ever made by human beings are subjective by definition.

No, both ethics and morals are subjective. There's no "systematic" way to determine what is right or wrong.

Go look up ethical theories, there have been plenty of proposed systematic ways to determine what is right and wrong. Just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they don't exist.

As for the physics comparison, physics is subjective, as is all science.

Is logic objective? What is NOT subjective to you people?

Also what may seem "obvious" to you isn't at all to others. There have been people in history who have no moral issue with killing people on a whim. The DC sniper is a good example. He just killed random people for seemingly no reason other than being angry at life.

2+2 = 4 seems obvious to me, but it isn't "obvious" to others. Is math subjective all of a sudden because some people disagree about it? I think you're missing my point. I clearly should have picked math, but there are people who disagree on mathematical concepts, even simple ones, so does that mean math is subjective? If you believe math is subjective I ask you to provide something that is objective.

If nothing is objective we should stop talking about subjectivity as it is pointless.

I remember a post Alt made a while ago that said basically the same thing.

I'm pretty sure it was a religious discussion, but the gist of his post was that "Doesn't the fact that we're even arguing about this [morality, ethics, etc.] show that there's no objective morality?".

I guess people arguing about math shows it's subjective too... see my above post.

I mean seriously, people arguing about things makes them inherently subjective? People have argued about the existence of objects in reality... does that mean reality is subjective? Where are we drawing the line?

Guys, I get it... you will try anything to show that morals are subjective, but you're going too far. It's a slippery slope that leads us to showing that EVERYTHING is subjective.

I'm ok with going down that path... but once we do it doesn't really matter if ethics/morals are subjective because it can be comparable to math and science.

In which case all I have to say is... if science has a systematic, agreed upon method of determining truth from falsity (at least to some degree, we can argue about inductive reasoning later) then why can't ethics have a similar, agreed upon system?

-blazed

 

[KrazyGlue]

Go look up ethical theories, there have been plenty of proposed systematic ways to determine what is right and wrong. Just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Theories. They aren't FACTS. And there will never, ever be any way to factually prove them right or wrong. Even if every last human being for the rest of time agrees on an ethical system, it's not objective. It's not mind-independent. It's based off of human judgement. You have to admit there is no factual basis behind any of this. There's also no way to argue that ethics is free of human judgement.

Is logic objective? What is NOT subjective to you people?

Did you read what I quoted?

2+2 = 4 seems obvious to me, but it isn't "obvious" to others. Is math subjective all of a sudden because some people disagree about it? I think you're missing my point. I clearly should have picked math, but there are people who disagree on mathematical concepts, even simple ones, so does that mean math is subjective? If you believe math is subjective I ask you to provide something that is objective.

If people disagree on something in mathematics, it is objective since there is a factual way to prove it. There is no such way in ethics.

If nothing is objective we should stop talking about subjectivity as it is pointless.

I never said that nothing is objective.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Show me one thing that you claim is "objective"and I'll show you something that people have disagreed about at one point. This is a horrible definition. According to this, all statements ever made by human beings are subjective by definition.

There are 100 cm in a meter.
The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
Captain Falcon is the personification of manliness.

There are facts in this world, no doubt. But when something is argued about in good faith (I don't mean just disagreeing for its own sake), that means it's subjective. Evolution, global warming, gravity even, are still theories, because anything in science is only as true as the last test to confirm it.

In which case all I have to say is... if science has a systematic, agreed upon method of determining truth from falsity (at least to some degree, we can argue about inductive reasoning later) then why can't ethics have a similar, agreed upon system?

-blazed

Because people change? Ideas change? Societies, circumstances, wealth, economics, agriculture, art, science, law, change over time? And those are the contexts that would inform any system of ethics.

The problem with moral objectivism is that it doesn't address competing claims to morality, it just says "there is absolute right and wrong" without defining those things or dealing with the reality that different people see things differently. Hammurabi's Code worked in the ancient world, but it certainly wouldn't work today. Does that mean that it was wrong, or just that the way the world works is different?

Moral objectivists also deny the fact that they were born and raised into a particular moral and ethical framework. We're Westerners: we have a Western, Judeo-Christian outlook on the world. Do you think that your idea of morality would be different if you were born in Iraq, or Japan, or early 19th century Georgia?

 

[Dre89]

Way too many posts to answer here.

Also, to virtually everyone in this thread, stop saying moral theories are just opinions, or methods of preserving social order if you haven't actually studied any moral theories.

They're not just opinions, good moral theories actually have arguments showing why there's is evident, it isn't just an opinion.

There's way too many uninformed posts in here about morality that'd take too long to counter.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Way too many posts to answer here.

Also, to virtually everyone in this thread, stop saying moral theories are just opinions, or methods of preserving social order if you haven't actually studied any moral theories.

They're not just opinions, good moral theories actually have arguments showing why there's is evident, it isn't just an opinion.

There's way too many uninformed posts in here about morality that'd take too long to counter.

So we just take your word for it? Why post to say, "You're wrong, but I'm not going to tell you why?"

 

[Dre89]

No.

I said it was too long to explain, but then people started saying 'morality is just opinions' and 'morality is just to preserve social order', which is attempting to directly refute my position, despite me not even arguing for it.

Claims like that further compell me not to argue my case because it shows people here aren't familair with moral philosophy at all if they're still at that stage of thinking, which was basically a result of the society we live in anyway.

Although I find relativism self-defeating and in complete conflict with not only human nature, but nature in general, I would still be open to a relativist argument, that is, if someone atcually had an argument for it, but no one here does.

It would be like me, a person not familiar with science, arguing a scientific issue.

Now I'm not saying you had to have studied philosophy for me to listen to you, or that I know I'm right, but everyone here has displayed that they're uninformed on the issue.

 

[Jam Stunna]

No.

I said it was too long to explain, but then people started saying 'morality is just opinions' and 'morality is just to preserve social order', which is attempting to directly refute my position, despite me not even arguing for it.

Claims like that further compell me not to argue my case because it shows people here aren't familair with moral philosophy at all if they're still at that stage of thinking, which was basically a result of the society we live in anyway.

Although I find relativism self-defeating and in complete conflict with not only human nature, but nature in general, I would still be open to a relativist argument, that is, if someone atcually had an argument for it, but no one here does.

It would be like me, a person not familiar with science, arguing a scientific issue.

Now I'm not saying you had to have studied philosophy for me to listen to you, or that I know I'm right, but everyone here has displayed that they're uninformed on the issue.

This is why you inform people.

 

[Dre89]

The thing is, the argument takes ages to set up, particularly for people who aren't familair with natural law theory or virtue ethics, and I feel it detracts from the debate of this thread.

I'm also less motivated because I've already explained it numerous times in other threads, and it's such a chore to replicate time and time again.

 

[Faithkeeper]

I decided I'd reply to that which I disagreed with most, and other who I replied to ... for different' reasons.

Theories. They aren't FACTS. And there will never, ever be any way to factually prove them right or wrong.

You sound like every creationist I know. Evolutionary theory isn't a fact. Gravity isn't a fact. Atomic theory isn't a fact. There are strong arguments to say that morality is an opinion, but calling it a theory is not one of them.

It's not mind-independent.

Humans aren't mind independent. We couldn't do much of anything without our brains. Good luck killing people without your brain. I really don't understand what you mean by this.

It's based off of human judgement.

So are most theories. We look at the facts, we say "hey, this makes sense." There is some evidence regarding the basis morality that I will get to later.

You have to admit there is no factual basis behind any of this.
There's also no way to argue that ethics is free of human judgement.

You already said this, I'll get to it.

If people disagree on something in mathematics, it is objective since there is a factual way to prove it. There is no such way in ethics.

Math is our way of explaining the principles we observe. Their numerical nature frees them (to some degree) from the semantical problems encountered when describing principles with words. (different words mean different things to different people) however, there are principles behind morality, and with close examination, they could potentially be formatted into a less vulnerable means of expression
[/QUOTE]

I keep seeing people post about knowing what is objectively right or wrong as if such a thing is possible.

I think it could be possible. I don't think we have it right now, but I do think we have the tools to investigate further. In my observation/reading/experience/whatever, there has been a single principle that has stood as the basis for moral reasoning in all cultures I have heard of: selfishness. Different cultures disagree on how selfish you may be, or to whom you may be unselfish to, but this idea seems to lie beneath it all. In that African culture they may view it as selfish to not engage in those rituals, that to not do so would put the entire community at risk of the wrath of the deity/deities. you weren't specific so I can't be in that scenario. Countries rarely encourage cowardliness the night before a battle in the form of desertion. on is being selfish of one's own life to the harm of the greater community. In the same way in other cultures to have sex with children is selfish because they are psychologically harmed by the act. Or to kill an individual is selfish because you take his life, also to the harm of the community (why killing criminals or other nations is much more socially acceptable). I believe it was krazyglue who brought up a comic book figure as evidence, a sniper who just killed people. Anti-social personalities do exist, but are certainly the minority, but those in the same community with normal brain structure and chemistry see this individual's actions as wrong. I do not find it difficult for one to imagine how a system based on selfishness might have developed from a natural selection environment when one looks at the sociological implications. Everyone likes the individual who is unselfish, they may have even been originally conditioned to like him/her via his/her unselfishness. Who knows.

Anyway, all of that basically says that whether something is morally acceptable is dependent on if it is selfish in nature and who is selfish to. Now that I have established this premise come the hard part: global application. I'm fairly confident that equations could be developed for individual, isolated cultures to express their moral law, but global application is much, much, much more difficult. I can't do it. Yet. I think the next step to take is to try to develop expressions of the isolated cultures to confirm that is can be done. Then the next step is to take on the bigger fish. Establish variables, do research, test! test! test! Perhaps in the future we could establish an expression on how one's genes effect one's moral identification. Create "set points" for different cultures, with a normal curve expression the distribution of their moral beliefs with the set point being the mean. Then research could be done on different aspects, on the environment or culture, to identify at least the trend they correlate with. Maybe it will never be done. The laws of physics have yet to be expressed in a single, all-inclusive equation, and I am confident that physics has undergone far more empirical research than morality. But to make progress, we must start somewhere. I believe it's possible.