<p>So on what basis would you justify the belief that murder is wrong? No appeal to any higher authority is possible, and “it feels wrong” is not a valid argument for that reason.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hence no morality – my point exactly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, because I don’t believe that the laws are moral. Obviously. But that doesn’t change the fact that laws are created because some person thinks that something is immoral.</p>
<p>Define “order” and “happiness” and I’ll show you how your definitions are moral judgments.</p>
<p>Are you arguing that laws (which are formed by people making moral judgments) are not in fact moral, because people’s morals judgments are not moral?</p>
<p>Person A: I create law X because I believe A
Person B: Law X is immoral because A is untrue</p>
<p>So although Person A made a law based on a moral judgment, Person B believes that the law is not moral because he does not accept moral premise A. Let me rephrase:</p>
<p>Person A: Law X is true because 2+2=7
Person B: You’re an idiot</p>
<p>Do you see? Of course, it’s math, but you get the picture – the fact that Person A made a law based on a moral/mathematical premise does not mean that the law is correct. Why not? Because the premise is flawed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I already defined extramarital as also including premarital – that is, having sex with someone other than the spouse (in any form). Both include this:</p>
<p>Case A: Two people have sex to each while unmarried. It doesn’t matter that they marry later. The point is that they have sex while unmarried.</p>
<p>Case B: Divorce is not something I accept as a possibility, i.e. marriage ends when one of the two dies and only then. So by “marrying” someone else and having sex with them, they are having extramarital sex (i.e. adultery).</p>
<p>There is nothing inherently right or wrong about anything. There is no ultimate good or bad. There is only what we have decided is right or wrong or good or bad, based on biological needs and - as time passed - consensus. I liked this explanation – “And to add on, there is no real right or wrong, simply what we as a society have labeled beneficial or detrimental to the greater whole. For example, murder harms others, giving freely helps, etc. So we call those things right, or moral.”</p>
<p>For example, my room is set up so that everything has a place and everything is in its place. Things are practically in alphabetical order, and my clothes are organized by color. In my sister’s room, everything is strewn about. I say my room is organized. She says she can find her socks, and therefore her room is organized. Obviously we have different ideas about what is organized. Regardless of our differing opinions, we’ve come to a crossroads. We both agree that to consider a room organized, you must be reasonably able to find what you need.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not inherently “good” or “bad,” but it is the “right” thing to do. Why? All creatures are programmed with a desire to live. This is the most basic purpose of life, no? N other purpose can be accomplished - well, few others - if we succumb to death. That’s not an unfounded statement. If our fundamental purpose wasn’t to try to live, why would we bother with tools, fight or flight reactions, habitat adaptations, etc.?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Firstly, not everyone believes murder is wrong. Even as a society we go to war, put people to death for their crimes, and celebrate martyrdom. Secondly, like I said, murder is considered wrong by society because it tears society to bits. That’s also why theft, Bernie Madoff schemes, and speeding are outlawed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not always true. Believe it or not, morality doesn’t make the world go round. Sometimes laws are necessary even if they don’t regard morality. Is it immoral to jaywalk? Hardly. But that doesn’t invalidate the law, and it doesn’t mean that the person who wrote that law thought jaywalking was immoral.</p>
<p>So like I had argued before, one person’s morals may not match up with another person’s morals. Therefore there is no one, constant, correct moral because not everyone is going to agree on one thing. Find me a moral concept that 100% of living and sentient people all agree on and prove that every single person agree on it and I will retract that statement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So again, tell me why you get to denounce some morals as incorrect? Keep in mind what I posted in the previous lines.</p>
<p>
Says who?</p>
<p>extra - Latin root; means outside</p>
<p>Marital - marriage</p>
<p>In the first case, the couple was not married but had sex, and in the second case the couple was divorced before having sex. There was no sex happening outside of a marriage because there was no marriage when they had sex.</p>
<p>But why is premarital sex wrong to you, according to your morals? Don’t tell me something like … because the church says so, or anything. There must be a reason why they say it’s wrong. So why is it wrong?</p>
<p>If I was playing devil’s advocate, I’d say something along the lines of “It’s wrong because you’ve proved that you can not resist your urges or demonstrate that you’re committed enough to wait”</p>
<p>In a scientific or ontological context? If the former, sure – I’ll accept that premise. Then we are talking about instinct for survival, in which case there’s still no “right” thing to do because there is absolutely no sense of morality whatsoever. I have no duty to the race, right? If you think that I do, why do I have such a duty? Who determines that I have it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I included that caveat in my first post – obviously some laws (e.g. zoning, jaywalking) are not directly related to morality. The rest of my posts assumed that that caveat was not forgotten.</p>
<p>But even jaywalking has moral overtones – we don’t want people to die for whatever reason. What is that reason?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? Let’s consider the situation:</p>
<p>Person X: 2+2=4
Person Y: 2+2=5
Person Z: 2+2=10</p>
<p>Does the fact that Persons Y and Z disagree with Person X mean that person X is wrong? No, because he describes a universal truth. A moral absolutist would therefore not agree with the premise that disagreement means that no absolute morality exists, because he believes that there is an ultimate Truth that applies to everyone, even if they don’t like it or agree with it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you for the lesson in a language I have studied extensively. I will now show why the definition you provided supports my point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the first case, they had sex while unmarried. Or outside of marriage, one could say – given that they weren’t married. So yes, that sex is premarital and extramarital.</p>
<p>In the second case, they remain married until one of them dies, period. Any sex with anyone else constitutes extramarital sex because they have exactly one spouse until that one spouse dies.</p>
<p>This is still splitting hairs. Let me just make it clear so we can move on:</p>
<p>You may have sex with your one spouse while married only. Marriage only ends when one of the spouses dies. Call it what you want.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because marriage constitutes a sacramental covenant with God, and sexual intercourse is only appropriate when that ultimate vow of love is taken, id est, sex is the ultimate expression of a love that must be professed beforehand.</p>
<p>Why does it have to be a WHO (or an anything) that determines it? I see no reason why it isn’t just an evolved instinct.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Society. The golden rule. See previous posts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, because it’s against the law, so that’s not “okay” by any means (though that stops few people). Is it moral? You may think so, but the general consensus is no.</p>
<p>And therefore not moral. Again, do I have a DUTY to continue my race. If so, why? If not, then you have just embraced my argument that without a higher power, morality cannot exist.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So we agree that secular morality is an oxymoron, for that is what your previous posts say – I’m glad we clarified this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Okay” in a legal context? Obviously not. But in a moral context? Why would it not be okay?</p>
<p>WOW WOW WOW WOW! Did you try to use MATH, an OBJECTIVE, (mostly) TANGIBLE concept to try to explain an INTANGIBLE and SUBJECTIVE concept? Hey, maybe tomorrow you can show me how apples and oranges are the same things because they are both fruits.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay lets have another lesson in language. pre - before… marital - marriage. Pre-marital sex is sex BEFORE a marriage happens. Extra marital sex is sex OUTSIDE of a marriage, while the marriage is happening. Pre-marital sex is not extra-marital sex because there is no marriage to be having sex outside of.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It all leads to something along the lines of “Because God says so” </p>
<p>Why does God say so, what would make him decide that sex outside of a marriage is bad.</p>
<p>But some people consider morality OBJECTIVE and TANGIBLE. So the situations ARE analogous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the case of premarital sex, it is OUTSIDE marriage, not outside THE marriage – I consider both extramarital because they occur OUTSIDE marriage. So I’m simply engaging in a linguistic sleight of hand, which I clearly delineated before I did so. </p>
<p>Anyway, your silence on the other point is taken as concession/acquiescence unless you specify otherwise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ask Him, not me. It’s His Law, not mine. And the reason was already given – God says it is so because it is so, by definition. Similarly, I believe it because it is true, not the other way around.</p>
<p>Again, it’s right here. I’m tired of repeating myself – my last post contained a concise version of this document:</p>
<p>Joe and Jane have been together for 30 years. They have a loving relationship, and unconditionally love each other. They are able to share and cooperate and be a great couple. They have sex regularly (with protection, as they do not want kids). They have a healthy sex life and a great relationship. But they aren’t married (for whatever reason).</p>
<p>I am asking…what is the problem with that, meaning 1) and 2)? (And in your mind, any form of contraception that isn’t abstinence is artificial?–So you support teaching abstinence-only to students?)</p>
<p>In your OPINION it’s wrong. I still have never seen it outrightly stated in any religious text that Premarital sex is bad. Some religions I know that the use of contraceptives is bad. But i the problem causing immediate or any harm to anyone? I think not.</p>
<p>One problem is that if Jane gets pregnant and Joe decides to leave (change in thought), what really happens? There’s no system for security of the relationship, it can just really end if either one says so. That can be a huge problem. Of course though as an artificial creation Marriage itself is a flawed concept as it is limited anyways, but if you look through to it’s purpose (despite what others would claim from social/religious/other reason) the idea of security is essential.</p>
Oh, I see what you’re saying now, at least on the extra/pre-marital stuff.</p>
<p>What? That marriage only ends with the death of a spouse? I didn’t respond to it because I think it’s just dumb. But of course that’s my own personal opinion. What happens if a spouse becomes abusive, does drugs, drinks, and refuses to rehabilitate. Do you take the beating, or do you leave? What if a spouse cheats on you and does not want to touch you ever again. You do not believe in divorce or extramarital sex. Do you just suck it up and stay with him/her? There are too many possibilities to be black and white about these things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is so only because God says it is so. If God did not say something was so, you would not be following it or recognized it as so even if it was so.</p>
<p>
<br>
You can reproduce, start a family, and do anything and everything normally without getting married as well…</p>