Women and horses?

sebastian · Jan 31, 2010

I suspect that we are getting to that point rapidly. But I'm a dom. I hate not winning an argument. Not that I'm conceding, mind you...

Sparrow69 · Jan 31, 2010

sebastian said:
I think you are misunderstanding my point. If we say that there is no such thing as an absolutely moral or immoral action (that morality is relative and therefore determined entirely by cultural circumstances), then there is no true basis for demanding social change on the basis of morality.

precisely right, because to argue social change based solely on a personal notion of values, instilled by pocket culture, would be unconstitutional., and as such, illegal.

Gays cannot argue that it is immoral to deny them the legal right to marry (which is generally the reasoning that persuades straights to support gay marriage).

the argument lobbied correctly would be it is illegal and constitutionally a hate crime to bar them from entering a legal business contract on the basis of sexual orientation. Thats the argument lobbied to the supreme court by the American Civil Liberties Union. See the Constitution removes religion from the equation, and therefore, only FACTS, not personal, emotional, or commentary on feelings, can be viewed on the issue.

Blacks in the 1960s could not have claimed that the laws barring them from voting were immoral (after all, the real turning point was when whites saw the extreme violence being used to suppress the movement and decided that it was immoral).

The argument was that it was an Illegal and unjust law, not an immoral one. While the violence did gain a pull on the basis of human emotion, that only goes to show how emotions can be used to say peoples moral views. Bare in mind before the supreme court overturned the laws they did, (and not all laws were overturned granting equal rights) it was the Moral belief that whites were superior and closer to god.
I'm not saying that we as humans aren't infallible, and I'm not saying that some laws are made irrational and on a fraudulently corrupt basis. I'm saying that What is MORAL and what is LEGAL are not the same thing.

Let me make the point another way. If morality is determined entirely by the context of the society, why was antebellum slavery wrong? It was legal, and southern society insisted that it was moral.

Because while southern society said it was right, the rest of society said it was wrong,and all it took was merely convincing them of such before they changed the law.

sebastian said:
I suspect that we are getting to that point rapidly. But I'm a dom. I hate not winning an argument. Not that I'm conceding, mind you...

Personally i didn't see it as an argument, i saw it as a discussion on the view of the difference between what is moral and what is legal. Either way, I highly enjoy and appreciate your ability to discuss this subject maturely and with precise and educated arguments. You are a welcome member of this site, and I look forward to many more discussions with you in the future.

sebastian · Jan 31, 2010

Sparrow, you're assuming that laws only get changed because people decide that a law is illegal. That's simply not how societies operate. In all honesty, that's not even how the Supreme Court operates. Justices develop powerful convictions and then read the laws in light of those convictions. If the only argument to be made for Black civil rights was that the Constitution demanded them, no one would ever have supported the movement. People supported the movement because they felt that it was moral and just.

As far as antebellum slavery, you've really just proven my point. You couldn't argue that it was wrong for southerners to do it within their own context, so you adjusted the context to find a vantage point that said it was unjust. In other words, you found a way to impose your reading of the morality onto the situation.

I wasn't really seeing it as an argument either. But I figured I might get a cheap laugh by invoking being a dom. I enjoy discussing abstract issues a great deal, and often play the Devil's Advocate, although not in this case. And d/s stuff can get so murky and grey, I find that it helps to have clear base principles to refer back to, like a lighthouse. Thanks for the formal welcome.

kittengrey · Jan 31, 2010

-throws two pennies in- On a slightly late note, I'm throwing what I learned from Master in here, even if I may slightly be repeating Sparrow
There is no wrong. We as humans are raised and told by those older then us what is frowned upon, so we tend to frown upon it ourselves. But if we strip the influence of society away, nothing would be frowned upon as universally, and it would all depend on personal likes or dislikes.
Here's a few good examples. Stealing is seen as 'wrong'. While there are people who steal when they have the money and don't need to steal, there are those who need to steal to survive. The laws against stealing are made to create and maintain order, not because it is 'wrong' or 'right'.
......sorry to cut my point short, but my brain just died. xD Basic moral of post: there is no wrong

Sparrow69 · Jan 31, 2010

please know that i didn't adjust anything, i was looking at it as a populous. Gay rights and sex with animals and minors are considered immoral from a religious standpoint, as it is the only difference between our country, and other countries that allow it.
antebellum slavery was also immoral from a religiously corrupt interpretation. bare in mind,the bible still ENDORSES forced slavery in those who have shown their worth to be less. We overturned that law on the seperation of church and state. if it was on morals alone, the clan would be abolished.

sebastian · Jan 31, 2010

I'd argue you are redefining it (I did specify that we were speaking within the context of southern society), but even if I give you the wider context, your argument still doesn't work. Southerners themselves didn't see it as immoral--they argued aggressively that it was moral. So what right did northerners have to impose their morality on southerners? After all, you are arguing that I shouldn't impose my view of the morality of bestiality onto those who find it morally acceptable, and we're operating within the context of the same society. I repeat my point that if all morality is relative and culturally determined, antebellum slavery was moral.

Sparrow69 · Jan 31, 2010

I'm not saying that the north had a right to impose their moral view on the south. Quite the contrary, im saying they had no right. I'm saying since the north had done away with slavery, it was fine for them to live as they did, and for the south to live as they did as well. HOWEVER, when a citizen of the country, travels from the south, to the north, to petition a federal court in a state and county where hes viewed as a free man, that his rights were being infringed in the same country, then it sets LEGAL precadent. to investigate it from a legal standpoint. Bare note, that the basis for the war was not to free indentured servants but free men,who where recaptured and forced back into servitude. Since every servant claimed to have been free atone point or another, there was no choice but to release them all.
Indentured servitude is still legal in this country. As long as said service does not exceed 5 years, and the servant earns a fare wage as dictated by the federal earnings commission.

sebastian · Jan 31, 2010

Legality aside (since we started with morality, not law), Sparrow, you just agreed that rape, torture, and nonconsensual servitude were morally acceptable, that there was nothing immoral about antebellum slavery.("It was fine for [southerners] to live as they did.") If it was acceptable then, how can it be immoral now? Since it depends entirely on the context of those doing it, on what basis can we say rape is immoral now? Many immigrants come from cultures where rape is not always seen as immoral, so for them it should be moral. We can't say that they have to accept our morality, because it's wrong to impose morality on others.

To abstract it further, on what basis is it wrong to impose morality on others. If my morality says it's immoral to allow moral failings to go uncorrected, then saying I can't do it is imposing your moral standards on me. The further you follow this line of reasoning, the further it unravels. I remain convinced that there are some fixed moral points.

Kitten, what your example points to is not that stealing is not wrong, but that there is a hierarchy of morality, in which self-preservation or the support of one's family is a greater moral imperative than the imperative to not take what does not belong to you. It also points to the fact that moral systems have points of conflict, just as legal ones do.

Sub4Life · Jan 31, 2010

Just to throw somthing in. I beleive Morality is different for each person. Besides things like rape, slavery, and murder, which I think any decent human being would appose, what someone finds moral depends on how they were raised.

I agree with Sebastian that sex with horses, or any other animal is immoral. But because of how I was raised, I find having more than one sexual partner immoral. That doesnt mean I think poorly of those who do these things, and I know a lot of people do it. One of my best best friends has had more than one partner at a time. But I dont think bad of him, or look down on him.

No one can tell another person what is moral and what isnt. (except rape, murder and slavery, things like that are never acceptable or ok) It depends on the person, and their upbringing and beleifs.

sebastian · Jan 31, 2010

Sub, We basically agree here. I think there are some irreducible moral foundations (based mostly on consent), but that individuals have the right to make choices about their moral principles beyond those foundations. As a Christian, I do believe there are higher levels of right and wrong that God uses to judge us, but I fully acknowledge that this is a personal belief and that others have a right to tell me I'm wrong in what I believe and to believe other than I do.

Women and horses?

sebastian

Active Member

Sparrow69

Moderator

sebastian

Active Member

kittengrey

Member

Sparrow69

Moderator

sebastian

Active Member

Sparrow69

Moderator

sebastian

Active Member

Sub4Life

Member

sebastian

Active Member

Similar threads