Objective Moral Values

For my part, I think that this is right on the money. It occurs to me that these decisions and the associated instinct are all going on within an individual(s). The conflict does not exist outside of this context. This framework or decision to choose to one instinct or impulse over the other is enforced or favored and encouraged in a social setting or group. Learned! Then, tradition and longevity tend to leave the impression that certain value judgments are immutable and eternal. This board itself is a testament to the existence of the perpetual exception. C.S. Lewis huh? Good work. :p

I rather like the Lewis argument (except, perhaps, for the definition of the sexual impulse as bad in most cases). I do not, however, think that it contradicts any of my arguments, and in fact fits rather nicely into my morality-as-quality-of-music analogy.

objective moral values: doesn't insight into the nature of objective moral values require a divine mind?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

objective moral values: doesn't insight into the nature of objective moral values require a divine mind?

---

I for myself think that morals are relative, that there is no such thing as an absolute right or wrong.
Regarding the issue that the belief on objective or absolute moral values requires
the belief in a divine mind as well here's an excerpt from Bertrand Rusell's lecture "Why I am not a Christian" (it doesnt have much to do with the topic but i find it rather interesting):

"Kant, as I say, invented a new moral argument for the existence of God, and that in varying forms was extremely popular during the nineteenth century. It has all sorts of forms. One form is to say there would be no right or wrong unless God existed. I am not for the moment concerned with whether there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: that is another question. The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are in this
situation: Is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not bad independently of the
mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God. You could, of course, if you liked, say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to the God that made this world, or could take up the line
that some of the gnostics took up -- a line which I often thought was a very plausible one -- that as a matter of fact this world that we know was made by the devil at a moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal to be said for that, and I am not concerned to refute it."

It seems what Russel calls God there is a no-God. The problem to argue, then, would be on the comprehension of the term "God".

I have often had a chuckle out of the Gnostic notion. Kind of like a major verison of the Norse god Loki or the tricksters in folk tails.


For the sake of consistancy, I am going to take God as a projection of mankind in the sense that Plato presented as the idea of the perfect form of human intelligence. In this sense perhaps you could argue that the perfect intellegence would make the perfect choices and these would be... perfect and Immutable. However that perfect intellegence would have to be human in this sense. If it wasn't would humans be condemned for the agressive expansion on the planet at the expense of so many other forms? or is this just natural selection? In this case then there is no good or bad only "the process". If the process is deemed good then our opinions have no meaning. This is the tao. --- random thoughts..

I was thinking about an act like kamikaze or other similiar acts, in which the subject voluntarly sacrifice his/her self for a reason, which are actually against human natural instinct (to use Lewis' term, self-preservation).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by subterranean

I was thinking about an act like kamikaze or other similiar acts, in which the subject voluntarly sacrifice his/her self for a reason, which are actually against human natural instinct (to use Lewis' term, self-preservation).

---

A bit off topic, those acts are not really against human natural instinct, I think. Remember the term thanatos? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanatos_%28Freud%29

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holograph

Morality is an individual experience, one that the individual ascertains and changes throughout one's life. A sense of morality en masse can become an objective reality, and has become to a degree, but it is fully based on perception.

---

I think morality is an individual experience in terms of how we apply a larger moral framework to our own personal decisions. Making morality totally defined by the individual (which is a popular idea these days) is frankly pretty scary because the world presents us with a wide variety of different world-views (as well as various levels of rational function). If morality is totally subjective, then we have no right to "impose our views on someone else" (a popular phrase when the topic of objective (or worse, "Christian") morality pops up). Once morality becomes solely self-defined, we now have no way to ajudicate between parties in dispute over the nature of an action or behavior. Hence the development of a collective morality - which allows us now to render socially defined ideas about "right" and "wrong" - but these are only "objective" in terms of agreement: the majority believe that a, b, and c and "right," so therefore they are. These "objective" standards are open to debate and revision - which means their "objectivity" was merely an agreed upon convention (which is not in the strictest sense "objective" at all).

So we've solved the social problem, somewhat. But what about the "global village" we all live in? Technology has brought numerous cultures within closer contact. So far, so good. But what happens when cultures clash in terms of morals? If morality is socially defined by consensus, then how can any culture "judge" another? It's very popular in a number of threads here for people to post the politically-correct sounding "who are we to judge someone else/else's culture?" - but that reasoning creates a problem: how do you solve disagreements between cultures with moral systems that disagree? Just say "Well, that's just how they do things and it's none of our business"? Aren't there some behaviors that ought to be condemned, regardless of culture? I think we paint ourselves into a scary corner when we decide that morality is self-defined, because, at some point, some culture will present a behavior that we will look at and go "That is unmistakably wrong."

I think you answered your own question. The root of the word morality comes from Latin roots that roughly translate to "customs". I believe that the problem is only a "social" problem as you phrased it. The cultural conflict is certainly an issue. Agreement does not necessarily exist across cultures. I think this is the easy side of the problem. I think the problem has more to do with systems that are used to justify what is not moral behavior in any culture. I think you can agree that killing is generally regarded as wrong across the board. Now you have groups believing that it's OK to kill if you are doing God's work. Not picking on religion. The secular argument is it's OK to kill to protect the state from the bad guy. I picked on these because most people believe they are sort of the absolute anchor positions. The biggest being self defense. In truth, it could be argued that there is really no justification to take a life ever. With this as the anchor point, it becomes a debate for what is acceptable. The problem now is that the lines for what is acceptable are changing. This is because of advances in technology as well as cultural clashes mixed with long standing tradition. The abortion debate is the text book example. So in the new world, which is coming into being every single passing moment, how shall we agree to what is acceptable. Globally! By the way once we agree, some new breakthrough in understanding may need consideration next week. It will be on the net. So we may have to do it again. The moral framework will require shifting. I am of the opinion that people will need to adjust to less tradition and more dynamics as the pace of change grows more rapid. This is not comfortable for many. Nothing is a substitute for individual compassion and a sense of practical.

I think your post creates a circle back into mine. Any "global" agreement on "morality" is just that: an agreement. People can choose to disagree and ignore an agreement when it no longer serves their needs (or they can refuse to endorse it from the start because it disagrees with their view of "right" and "wrong.")

"Objective" means "without bias or prejudice": ultimately, humanly established morality will always be subject to one or both of these flaws - it is inescapable. Morality established by consensus is a necessary tool, but it cannot help mediate problems between cultures because cultures will inevitably have some areas that don't coincide in terms of "right" behavior. Without objective morality, we have to allow atrocious behavior to exist because we really don't have any right to condemn another culture's consensual idea of "right" action.

This is why God as the giver of moral law is such an important idea: the assumption being that a divine being's law is above human bias and prejudice (therefore "objective" in the purest sense of the word); as well, it is beyond human "revision" regardless of technological "advancement" (note my contemptuous quotation marks) and global "diversity."

"This is why God as the giver of moral law is such an important idea"

It is a disastrous idea when it gets into the minds of heads of powerful states.
As long as they can accept "morality established by consensus is a necessary tool" there is some check on their actions. Once they believe they are speaking for God, and starting talking about an "axis of evil" then they are well on the way to moral insanity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

"This is why God as the giver of moral law is such an important idea"

It is a disastrous idea when it gets into the minds of heads of powerful states.
As long as they can accept "morality established by consensus is a necessary tool" there is some check on their actions. Once they believe they are speaking for God, and starting talking about an "axis of evil" then they are well on the way to moral insanity.

---

I won't deny that - fallen beings have unlimited capactity to warp any philosohpy to their own ends. Even technology can be utilized so - but that doesn't make the philosophy/theology or technology inherently bad/wrong/invalid - it just means it is subject to distortion. Auto accidents are either the #1 or #2 cause of death in the US, but nobody's calling for an end to automobiles (at least I don't think so :) ).

That governments wrap themselves in God's law in order to do as they wish doesn't diminish the value of objective moral law - it just shows how it can be perverted. "Speaking for God" is wrong because humans cannot speak for God - they can only point to what He Himself says (hence the importance of the Bible as authority). Again - as I probably posted elsewhere - objective moral law as created by God can only be wielded in ways consistent with the character of God. If a government is "speaking for God" but acting inconsistent with his character, then that government is abusing the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

"Speaking for God" is wrong because humans cannot speak for God - they can only point to what He Himself says (hence the importance of the Bible as authority).

---

You do not, I assume, call for the death penalty as punishment for failing to observe the Sabbath, as is described in the Old Testament. Therefore, you need some criterion outside scripture on which to base which parts of scripture you want the law to be based on. Therefore the Bible is not the only legal and moral authority, even to Christians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

You do not, I assume, call for the death penalty as punishment for failing to observe the Sabbath, as is described in the Old Testament. .

---

Correct - I do not. One of the key reasons for my agreement with your sugestion is that the New Testament revises the Old Testament. In other words, the Mosaic Laws of which you make reference were nullified by the New Covenant created by Christ's sacrifice on the Cross. Much of Christ's confrontation with the religious authorities of His time were due to their insistence of the Mosaic Laws and His refutation of the Law's role in "saving" mankind. The significance of the Bible is in its revelation of God's character - and His character, as seen in the person of Christ, abolished much of the 600 odd Jewish restrictions in the Old Testament. The laws of the OT that are verified by the NT are the ones that matter. The NT did not advocate death penalty for "Sabbath violations."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Therefore, you need some criterion outside scripture on which to base which parts of scripture you want the law to be based on. Therefore the Bible is not the only legal and moral authority, even to Christians.

---

Well, which "law" are you talking about? Objective moral law cannot be "objective" in its purest sense unless a being capable of objectivity creates it. As well, I'm not sure I advocated that the Bible be the "legal" authority - it wasn't written for that purpose.

By the way, glad to have you posting again, cup - I have missed your sharp-eyed comments :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Well, which "law" are you talking about?

---

Political law. I'm trying to leave moral law the hell out of it until I've read some Kant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Objective moral law cannot be "objective" in its purest sense unless a being capable of objectivity creates it.

---

Fortunately, it doesn't need to be objective 'in its purest sense'. Morality is something that exists in the minds of humans, and I think we're going to have to deal with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

As well, I'm not sure I advocated that the Bible be the "legal" authority - it wasn't written for that purpose.

---

I think I misconstrued your last post. Apologies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

By the way, glad to have you posting again, cup - I have missed your sharp-eyed comments

---

The sentiment is mutual, I'm sure.

Well hi there, cuppajoe - I just left you in the Evolution thread...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Political law. I'm trying to leave moral law the hell out of it until I've read some Kant.

---

I wonder if you'll find Kant to your liking - he's even more inflexible than I am about objective morality. He doesn't allow for circumstance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Fortunately, it doesn't need to be objective 'in its purest sense'. Morality is something that exists in the minds of humans, and I think we're going to have to deal with that.

---

Perhaps your first sentence is correct (it certainly is a necessity here on earth in terms of law). As far as your 2nd sentence, you're right: we do need to "deal" with morality because if it only exists in human minds, then it has no guaranteed stability: it's up for constant revision - whether that revision is "majority rule" or cultural bias - neither of which being capable of being free from subjective (and therefore questionable) morality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

As far as your 2nd sentence, you're right: we do need to "deal" with morality because if it only exists in human minds, then it has no guaranteed stability: it's up for constant revision.

---

Thank gawd for that. 500 years ago, nobody saw anything morally wrong with burning cats for entertainment. 200 years ago nobody saw anything morally wrong with denying people employment and housing based on ethnic or religious background. 100 years ago, people took it for granted that it is morally correct for women to be subservient to men. 60 years ago, nobody saw anything morally wrong with dumping toxic waste directly into the ocean.

You are assuming first that morality, as it stands, is not subject to change, and second that if it is allowed to change, it will disappear. Morality is certainly subject to change, it always has been, and we've been getting better at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Thank gawd for that. 500 years ago, nobody saw anything morally wrong with burning cats for entertainment. 200 years ago nobody saw anything morally wrong with denying people employment and housing based on ethnic or religious background. 100 years ago, people took it for granted that it is morally correct for women to be subservient to men. 60 years ago, nobody saw anything morally wrong with dumping toxic waste directly into the ocean.

---

Some of what you suggest is due to ignorance. And, nothing in the Bible supports the moral atrocities you list above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

You are assuming first that morality, as it stands, is not subject to change, and second that if it is allowed to change, it will disappear. Morality is certainly subject to change, it always has been, and we've been getting better at it.

---

Christ once said the "you cannot put new wine in old wineskins because the new wine will burst the old skins - you must put new wine in new wineskins" (Matt 9:17 loosely paraphrased). This analogy was Christ's attack against the Pharisee's "letter of the law" approach, because Christ was advocating a "spirit of the law" approach. The letter of the Law must have a certain flexibility (the new wineskin) in order to contain the living law (new wine) of God. So, in other words, I agree: certain revisions are necessary, but they need to occur inside a stable framework or else you get the kind of insanity you listed above.

As far as getting better, you really think so? Perhaps certain things have improved since the decades prior to the 60s - like equality for women and minority groups - but what about the flip-side in terms of sexual mores (and the consequences of those loosened standards), respect to authority and the stabilizing force of Christianity? Disregard my specific examples and consider the rising rates of crime, divorce, abortion, gang violence, teen suicide, etc. Are we really getting better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

And, nothing in the Bible supports the moral atrocities you list above.

---

The people who justified all of those using the Bible seem to think that it did (cat burning excepted).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Christ once said the "you cannot put new wine in old wineskins because the new wine will burst the old skins - you must put new wine in new wineskins" (Matt 9:17 loosely paraphrased).

---

Christ was obviously dealing wineskin there. Oh well, he can always turn some more water into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

This analogy was Christ's attack against the Pharisee's "letter of the law" approach, because Christ was advocating a "spirit of the law" approach.

---

I am advocating a "change the law" (and, eventually, "elliminate the law") approach, but that's beside the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

As far as getting better, you really think so?

---

Undeniably. Here's Pinker on it: http://www.edge.org/q2007/q07_1.html#pinker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

...but what about the flip-side in terms of sexual mores (and the consequences of those loosened standards), respect to authority and the stabilizing force of Christianity?

---

Authority does not deserve to be respected for its own sake, I obviously don't throw much truck in with the stabilizing force of Christianity, and I think sexual repression was just as bad for society as the excessive losening of sexual mores would be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Disregard my specific examples and consider the rising rates of crime, divorce, abortion, gang violence, teen suicide, etc. Are we really getting better?

---

Crime, violence and war are all, from the perspective of history, on a downward trend. Abortion experienced a spike when it became medically feaseable, but it is also dropping, if I'm not mistaken, and will continue to drop as oral contraceptives such as Plan B become increasingly available. The divorce rates strike me as a sign that we should be reevaluating our society's constant emphasis that everybody in it must get married and have children, rather than a sign that we are all bad people.

Face it: we're killing each other in smaller numbers and becoming increasingly aware and sympathetic to the plight of our fellow man. We're getting morally better, in other words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

The people who justified all of those using the Bible seem to think that it did (cat burning excepted).

---

Just because some Christians have distorted the Bible does not condemn the Bible any more than the actions of Hitler condemns all Germans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Christ was obviously dealing wineskin there. Oh well, he can always turn some more water into it.

I am advocating a "change the law" (and, eventually, "elliminate the law") approach, but that's beside the point..

---

Clever, but you didn't address the point I was trying to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

1.Authority does not deserve to be respected for its own sake,
2.I obviously don't throw much truck in with the stabilizing force of Christianity,
3.and I think sexual repression was just as bad for society as the excessive losening of sexual mores would be....
4.The divorce rates strike me as a sign that we should be reevaluating our society's constant emphasis that everybody in it must get married and have children, rather than a sign that we are all bad people.

---

I numbered your points for clarity's sake:
1. True - but even authority that deserves respect today gets none.
2. Fine - but despite the horrendous behavior committed by some Christians that so many atheists like to point out, what is conveniently left out is much of the humanitarian efforts and social improvements Christianity has contributed to - Abolition was carried forward on the shoulders of Christians. I think it rather glib to dismiss some of the positive things Christiantiy has contributed to society. I would certainly not dismiss a positive contribution to society based on someone's belief system.
3. What "repression"? Save it until you're married is repressive? How many problems does it solve/avoid to date for a few years, get married and then have sex? How many STDs, unwanted pregnancies, abortions and fragmented families does doing things in this order help avoid/stop?
4. Where do you get the idea that society says everyone should be married? You may be right, but I may be right too: the divorce rate may be increasing because we have devalued marriage by devaluing the sexual relationship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Face it: we're killing each other in smaller numbers and becoming increasingly aware and sympathetic to the plight of our fellow man. We're getting morally better, in other words.

---

Really? I think our society's "It's not my problem" and "that's their business" attitudes point in an opposite direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Just because some Christians have distorted the Bible does not condemn the Bible any more than the actions of Hitler condemns all Germans.

---

I didn't condemn all Christians, not by a long shot. My point is that the Bible is open to interpretation, and that your particular interpretation of it is not necesarily definitive (although, to judge from our conversations here, I heartily wish that it was).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

1. True - but even authority that deserves respect today gets none.

---

Example?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

. Fine - but despite the horrendous behavior committed by some Christians that so many atheists like to point out, what is conveniently left out is much of the humanitarian efforts and social improvements Christianity has contributed to - Abolition was carried forward on the shoulders of Christians. I think it rather glib to dismiss some of the positive things Christiantiy has contributed to society. I would certainly not dismiss a positive contribution to society based on someone's belief system.

---

Christianity has indeed contributed positive things to society, but that certainly does not mean that society will crumble if Christianity is removed. The country with the highest atheist population in the world was recently called the second best country in the world in which to live.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

What "repression"? Save it until you're married is repressive?

---

No, not that repression. The "sex is dirty and chastity is pure" repression. People are not helped by the idea that every time they have a sexual thought, they have commited a sin. This was a popular idea in the past (women were commonly burned at the stake for having sexual dreams in the middle ages).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

4. Where do you get the idea that society says everyone should be married?

---

The ideal that society pushes most certainly does involve marriage, particularly it's religious factions. You, in fact, just stated that people should ideally be either married or celibate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

I think our society's "It's not my problem" and "that's their business" attitudes point in an opposite direction.

---

There was never a time when society did not have those attitudes to some degree. The very fact that you think it's a problem indicates that we are changing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Example?

---

From personal experience: as a teacher, I experience many levels of disrespect that I am certain teachers of 30-40 years ago did not experience. I know disrespect in teenagers has always existed, but I doubt teachers in the 40-50s put up with what I have to - and I'm not even at some "inner city" school full of hoodlums. Second, look at attitudes towards the elderly - they are generally viewed as being a nuisance, irrelevant and a burden - as opposed to part of our rich cultrual/familial heritage that they were in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Christianity has indeed contributed positive things to society, but that certainly does not mean that society will crumble if Christianity is removed. The country with the highest atheist population in the world was recently called the second best country in the world in which to live.

---

As to your first point: I never implied society would "crumble" - I suggested that the diminshment of Christianity as a central force in society has weakened it in certain ways. As to your second point, what's the criteria for "best"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

No, not that repression. The "sex is dirty and chastity is pure" repression. People are not helped by the idea that every time they have a sexual thought, they have commited a sin. This was a popular idea in the past (women were commonly burned at the stake for having sexual dreams in the middle ages).

---

I agree - but there are ways to deal with that kind of repression that does not involve "have uncommitted sex with whomever you wish." And, I do believe we're way past the middle ages and that having sexual thoughts hasn't been considered a crime for quite a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

The ideal that society pushes most certainly does involve marriage, particularly it's religious factions. You, in fact, just stated that people should ideally be either married or celibate.

---

Religious factions "push" marriage so that sexuality has a safe place to be exercised within. My suggestion offers two equally valid choices - which does not imply that either is more preferable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

From personal experience: as a teacher, I experience many levels of disrespect that I am certain teachers of 30-40 years ago did not experience. I know disrespect in teenagers has always existed, but I doubt teachers in the 40-50s put up with what I have to - and I'm not even at some "inner city" school full of hoodlums.

---

It's a problem. However, I think the increased prevalence of disrespect towards teachers is a decent trade off for, say, the fact that you aren't alowed to beat your students senseless anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

As to your first point: I never implied society would "crumble" - I suggested that the diminshment of Christianity as a central force in society has weakened it in certain ways. As to your second point, what's the criteria for "best"?

---

First: I disagree, plenty of societies are doing just fine without it. Second: I'm not exactly sure, you'll have to ask the UN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

I agree - but there are ways to deal with that kind of repression that does not involve "have uncommitted sex with whomever you wish."

---

I agree, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

And, I do believe we're way past the middle ages and that having sexual thoughts hasn't been considered a crime for quite a while.

---

See? Moral progress!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

My suggestion offers two equally valid choices - which does not imply that either is more preferable.

---

Yeah, but I (for example) reject both of your suggestions, and suggest that people are perfectly capable of being unamarried and sexually active without being promiscuous. Your suggestions cannot be enfoced, so perhaps we should be looking into some sort of middle ground.

OK - last post for tonight - I'm beat. You're making me think too hard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

It's a problem. However, I think the increased prevalence of disrespect towards teachers is a decent trade off for, say, the fact that you aren't alowed to beat your students senseless anymore.

---

Wait a minute - how is it a "decent trade" that students get more respect and I get less?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

First: I disagree, plenty of societies are doing just fine without it.

---

Example? (And what does "fine" mean?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Second: I'm not exactly sure, you'll have to ask the UN.

---

I'll get right on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

See? Moral progress!

---

Let's hear it for the Straw Man (because you know that the discussion on moral progress was being applied to the 20th century but you purposely went far enough back to find an easily-attacked example - or did you? I assumed you did; perhaps that was my mistake).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Yeah, but I (for example) reject both of your suggestions, and suggest that people are perfectly capable of being unamarried and sexually active without being promiscuous. Your suggestions cannot be enfoced, so perhaps we should be looking into some sort of middle ground.

---

Fine - but "promiscuity" was not necessarily the issue I was pointing to. Sexual activity outside of a committed marriage creates circumstances that benefit from a committed marriage (children, for example). And, even if the relationship is kept childless, I think that sex creates bonds between people that are far more emotionally tenacious than we realize. As well, sex has the ability to "bind" us emotionally to someone to whom we may - if we had gotten to know them thoroughly before hopping into bed - have discovered is not a good person to be dating at all. But sexual intimacy convinces us that we have a true "bond" with someone - kind of like the false intimacy created between a therapist and client, a student and a teacher - that intimacy is based on proximity and should not be mistaken for a true relational intimacy. Sex indelibly marks us with the heart of the other person, and - like it or not - we "carry" that other person into our next relationship. (And that I connect - in part - to our current divorce rates).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Wait a minute - how is it a "decent trade" that students get more respect and I get less?

---

Unless they are actively beating you up, I consider that a decent trade off. Again, that isn't to say it's not a problem, but I would rather have rudeness than intsitutionalized violence, and I would much rather have neither.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Example? (And what does "fine" mean?)

---

Iceland. It means that the members of that society are, on the whole, healthy, happy and not prone to killing one another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Let's hear it for the Straw Man (because you know that the discussion on moral progress was being applied to the 20th century but you purposely went far enough back to find an easily-attacked example - or did you? I assumed you did; perhaps that was my mistake).

---

Nope, not just this past century, I was trying to look at the question from a larger historical perspective. Sexual repression of the kind I describe was, in any case, present in greater quantities at the beginning of the 20th century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Sex indelibly marks us with the heart of the other person, and - like it or not - we "carry" that other person into our next relationship.(And that I connect - in part - to our current divorce rates).

---

So do, to speak from experience, a lot of other things. It's unavoidable, unless you plan to marry the first person you become romantically interested in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Unless they are actively beating you up, I consider that a decent trade off. Again, that isn't to say it's not a problem, but I would rather have rudeness than intsitutionalized violence, and I would much rather have neither.

---

Easily said by one still a student and not a teacher. You've created an "either/or" issue out of something that was not origianlly so - a clever way of making my point sound less relevant because my concerns become trivial next to violence against children. You imply a relationship between the two in order to make my point part of a "trade off," but that wasn't my point - you asked me for examples of an erosion of respect towards authority and I gave you one. You supplied the "hey, it's better than this" which really wasn't relevant. There is a continuum from the "institutionalized violence" of the late 19thC to the current disrespect accorded educators of the late 20thC - and at somewhere on the line, students weren't being beaten and teachers - as "elders" and authority figures - were given much more respect than now. Why should there have to be a trade off? Am I supposed to "atone" for the atrocities of Victorian age education? Spend one day in my shoes and you'd get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Iceland. It means that the members of that society are, on the whole, healthy, happy and not prone to killing one another.

---

Fine. Assuming that a lack of homocide is the premise that points to the conclusion of a healty, moral society. Morality concerns more than whether or not we're killing each other literally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Nope, not just this past century, I was trying to look at the question from a larger historical perspective. Sexual repression of the kind I describe was, in any case, present in greater quantities at the beginning of the 20th century.

---

Point taken - but again: at what cost do you "liberate" people from restrictive attitudes? Should every restrictive attitude concerning sex be abolished? Where on the sexual continuum should we say "uh, no, that's not OK"? Can't NAMBLA cry "sexual repression" too? (Yeah, I know - extreme, unrealistic example, but you get my point.) Either way, the "free love" idea of the 60s which has flowered into the idea that sex is for whoever wants it was a flame-thrower response to a much smaller problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

So do, to speak from experience, a lot of other things. It's unavoidable, unless you plan to marry the first person you become romantically interested in.

---

Maybe - but without knowing what those things are, I will simply respond "not like sex does." Sex rewires our heart in ways I don't think science can completely fathor or measure. If you have sex with 20 individuals before you settle down and get married, trust me - you have carried some baggage into your marriage that you could have done without because it was - ultimately - avoidable. But more than just "you could have done without it," I would suggest that those prior intimate connections will result in problems within the marriage. (But that, again, is based on the Biblical idea that sex takes two and joins them into "one.")

And, you wouldn't marry the first person you got romantically involved with if you refrained from sex because you would be more able to maintain some sense of objectivity in deciding if this person is right. You'd have spent time dealing with the big questions before making that committment. But, once you have sex, the illusion is created through the bonding action of sex that makes us feel like this person is the one. One wonders how many doomed relationships - instead of properly terminating for the right reasons - instead went ahead and created unhappiness (or worse) because the sex fooled them into thinking they really had something between them when they really didn't?