Then do us the favor of explaining why you think that.
Mine did, and he has written many books.
Look up Marcus Borg, read him, and then think about it.
Perhaps it’s because your OP reminds me of when I sat in church and the Pastor would shake his finger at us, derriding us for our sin and heathenry from the pulpit. I could almost hear the “for shame” in your voice and feel the spray as you ranted. But that’s just me.
And again, maybe it’s just me, but I haven’t heard anyone describe morals and ethics as being that different, nor that ethics were based on love and compassion for my fellow man. Or that they were liberating and permitting. But perhaps I’m behind the times. Maybe that is how the word is used now. I could be wrong about that, I admit. If so, you have my apologies.
Well, you could argue it is bad for someone with HIV to risk infecting a 15 year old, who is still young, with a disease that’s incurable, is ultimatly fatal, and is only treatable with an expensive array of drugs that need to be taken daily. You’re right, everyone does deserve to be loved and to love, but that doesn’t mean everyone deserves to have sex.
Then what exactly is your problem with the Little League thread? According to the facts presented by the parties, the birth mother was 11-12 years old at the time of conception (in a country where the age of consent is 18) and the father was 19.
If the mother lied about her age (and I guess lied to the tune of 6-7 years) …then obviously the situation changes.
I recognize (as I stated in that thread) that the societal norms may be different in the DR…I’m not sure why that prevents us from having an opinion.
Women are treated like second class citizens in Saudi Arabia and Iran. I can recognize that societal norms and laws are different there…and still form an opinion about the morality of treating women like that.
Hastur, even if we agree that Morality is biblical and Ethics is societal (which I don’t), it still makes no sense.
Honor thy mother and thy father. That’s moral. According to you, that’s restricting and enslaving. How so? It’s also, BTW, ethical, since most people in our society would agree that honoring your mother and father is the right thing to do. So apparently, it’s not only restricting and enslaving, it’s also liberating and permitting. I see…
Thou shalt not murder. Well, this is a big no-no morally. It’s also very illegal. Society tends to frown upon the killing of another. So it’s both ethical and moral. Apparently, it too is enslaving and liberating to not kill someone.
You’re married Hastur. Would you cheat on your husband? Whether you follow the Bible or not, you are agreeing with it when you say “no, I would not cheat.”
I just do not see the difference between ethics and morals. Nor should it really matter. Why are ALL opinions bad…but only when it seems to be judging something the wrong way?
How can you judge the people of Salem like that? Their culture had different laws, mores, and standards than modern America. I can’t believe you would be so judgemental as to tell the people of Salem that they should not have done what they did.
I would say that not judging everyone equally regardless of their culture is wrong. Hastur’s definition of both ethics and morals are the exact same thing. Its just choosing one society over another. Ethics are still absolutes, its just that the dogma is a little less clear.
Judging other people is not wrong.
The whole of Society is made up of moral judgments; that’s how we arrive at social contracts and determinations of fundamental rights. It is necessary, and it is everyone’s responsibility, to judge people within this context.
I judge people all the time. I judge them based on their actions and their character. I try my best not to judge them on superficial things, but I do catch myself doing that once in a while. It’s something I do not like about myself.
People have judged me for it.
And I am a better person because of it.
Refusing to judge people because you do not see how it is morally possible is – frankly – cowardly. All great moral victories through history have been the direct result of courageous individuals who were not afraid to issue judgments.
That doesn’t mean you need to agree with those people. It doesn’t mean that their judgments are any more “right” than yours or mine. That’s what freedom is about. It’s entirely about evaluating ethical standards. To not do so leads inevitably towards ethical relativism; and that would be a sad state of affairs indeed.
**
What a damn shame that people tend to look at the world through their own standards. We should all ignore our own beliefs and embrace anything and everything we think is wrong.
**
I think it is a pretty good idea to try to talk anyone out of having sex with someone who is HIV positive. Don’t you?
**
How about those of us who expect to be judged by the same standards, no? Well then up your ass and in your mouth.
**
Sure laws and mores change from place to place. That certainly doesn’t mean we’re going to pretend our own beliefs do not exist.
**
Yeah, we should instead just accept that in some places it is good and right for 15 year old boys to have sex with an HIV positive partner.
So we can’t judge?
Marc
It was unfair of them to characterize the 18 year old as a pervert. However he’s HIV positive and doesn’t seem to have a problem having sex with uninfected partners. Fuck him, he’s an asshole who doesn’t have any regard to the death sentence he has a decent chance of giving his partner. Yeah I know his partner is aware of his HIV status. That just goes to show that this 15 year old is making a stupid decision. Wait, I can’t judge either of them can I?
Marc
Hastur, in Afghanistan it is the cultural norm for women to have to wear heavy veils that don’t show an inch of skin, to be beaten for showing some skin (even accidentally) and to be stoned to death for adultery. Can’t I judge the people committing this injustice because it’s the norm in Afghanistan? Of course I can.
[sarcasm]
And who are we to judge the Germans during Word war 2 in their program to exterminate the Jews? That was a different time, a different culture, and the National Socialists had a different cultural standard than we do. You’re quite correct, sir. No one should stand in judgement of them. FUCK anyone who thought the Nazis were wrong.
[/sarcasm]
How nice that the last grouping of posters sees sarcasm as their defense and attack. How nice to see that even a moderator cannot discuss things within the context of a debate and even invokes Gaudere’s Law to make their cynical point.
MGibson: You’ve had little to say in other threads that you have participated in, and in this thread like others, insult someone directly and diffuse any chance for real discussion and debate. You behave poorly, and seem more concerned with being right than have an honest discussion.
Judging things in an ethical rather than moral way does not mean you cannot extend help or see that something is wrong. The difference is, in a moral judgement, one is looking at things from a basis of absolute right and wrong and is then putting things in a black and white context.
Ethics are far more open, and thus in looking at matters, through ethics one is able to see how things are not black and white and are subject to interpretation.
Umm, is it just my imagination, or did you start this thread in the Pit? And you expect cordial debate?
Precisely. And that is not wrong. Consensus of ethical opinion os the foundation for society.
Righto. Now, let’s try this again. Why is wrong to judge people? I think you’re just too chicken to take a stand.
It’s Godwin’s Law and it doesn’t apply in this respect because I was not either calling you a Nazi or comparing you to one. I used the example as a reduction ad absurdum. How can you say in your first post :
and not also apply that to Nazi germany of the 1930’s and 40’s?
Because we were talking about two topics: a 16 year old wanting to be intimate with an 18 year old with HIV, and a supposedly 11 year old Dominican having children.
The Nazi thing is of a different stripe entirely, and to act as if it isn’t is manipulative and disingenuous.
It was the morality of the time which prompted isolationism.
Our country pushed an isolationist stance that ignored the suffering of others as well as three facist regimes coming to power and wanting global domination.
You cannot compare the 16 year old and the 11 year old in the same breath with a policy of isolationism from sixty years ago in good faith or conscience.
But now you’ve taken things in a different direction altogether. We’re not discussing the reasons for it, we were discussing whether it was okay to judge them as right or wrong based on cultural differences.
At this point it seems like beating a dead (or willfully comatose) horse, but I really need to clarify. Your point is:
It is wrong to say that things are wrong, so fuck you.
Am I mistaken? How exactly does your point differ?
Had you read through successive posts, you would see the point is far more complex than that.
The fuck you was in regard to the very nasty posts in the two referenced threads where people were forcing not sharing their narrowly moralistically based opinions.