Are you with UN "global" law prohibition the provocation "mock/insult/lie", about all religions ?

[AmbiguousGuy]

I don't know about transcendentality, or even marriage proper. But some behaviors are indeed inherently wrong, cultural differences not withstanding.

Well, maybe. It depends on the one judging. If you say they are 'inherently wrong', I assume you believe in some God whom you believe to declare that such behaviors are wrong.

If you don't believe in such a God, then you must be assuming that "humans ought to live peacefully together," which would imply to me that you believe the survival and success of the human race is somehow important beyond human opinion.

Anyway, I am certainly of the opinion that doing unnecessary harm to other humans is wrong, so I'm sure we agree on the issue if not on the basis behind moral thought.

To use your example, no cultural tradition really entitles a man to force himself upon a woman (of any age, incidentally), regardless of any marital status.

I think you may be mistaken. Even today there are many cultures in the world in which a man can take his wife anytime he pleases, no matter her wishes. I doubt such a husband would be arrested in many places.

Whether he is 'really entitled' or not? Sometimes I think about our ape cousins. Often a male takes a female, or tries to do so, against her will. Would you say that he isn't really entitled to do that?

That would be a vain, and at least arguably ethnocentric hope. But fortunately, assumptions are hardly needed on this matter.

I'm kinda confused by that. It would be a vain hope that other cultures will come to see women as equal to men?

If that's what you mean, I disagree. I think that if humanity lives long enough and continues to live in large societies, there will evolve a more-common way of seeing things. The 'primitive' societies will become more like the US and Western Europe, for example, in their views on sexual equality. It's a necessary outlook if we're to continue living together in large and successful societies.

Just my best guess at it, of course.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, maybe. It depends on the one judging. If you say they are 'inherently wrong', I assume you believe in some God whom you believe to declare that such behaviors are wrong.

Oh, no. Not by a long shot. People don't come much more atheistic than I am.

If you don't believe in such a God, then you must be assuming that "humans ought to live peacefully together," which would imply to me that you believe the survival and success of the human race is somehow important beyond human opinion.

Not quite in those terms. I happen to believe that we have inherent duties that arise from our impact upon each other and on the environment.

Anyway, I am certainly of the opinion that doing unnecessary harm to other humans is wrong, so I'm sure we agree on the issue if not on the basis behind moral thought.

Agreed.

I think you may be mistaken. Even today there are many cultures in the world in which a man can take his wife anytime he pleases, no matter her wishes. I doubt such a husband would be arrested in many places.

Oh, that is regrettably very true. But that in no way makes that morally acceptable.

Whether he is 'really entitled' or not? Sometimes I think about our ape cousins. Often a male takes a female, or tries to do so, against her will. Would you say that he isn't really entitled to do that?

See, that is one of the most significant differences between animals and people. People are capable of ethical thought, and that makes us morally responsible as well.

I'm kinda confused by that. It would be a vain hope that other cultures will come to see women as equal to men?

By a western worldview? Yes, it would. IMO of course. Nor would it be truly desirable, either.

If that's what you mean, I disagree. I think that if humanity lives long enough and continues to live in large societies, there will evolve a more-common way of seeing things.

To a certain degree, sure. And there will definitely be some core values universally accepted, much as the repudiation of slavery is already one such value.

Respect for women's rights (not necessarily "equality", since after all women are different from men) will be among those values, but not in a particularly western form.

Truth is, western societies have little to teach of moral values except perhaps for freedom.

The 'primitive' societies will become more like the US and Western Europe, for example, in their views on sexual equality.

In some senses, they will. In others, they will correct us.

It's a necessary outlook if we're to continue living together in large and successful societies.

Just my best guess at it, of course.

I don't disagree that much.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Oh, no. Not by a long shot. People don't come much more atheistic than I am.

I'm so atheistic that I've become horribly bored with it and so have gone back to dancing with God. The mind is such a strange place, I sometimes think, especially when it has too much time. I should probably get another job.

Not quite in those terms. I happen to believe that we have inherent duties that arise from our impact upon each other and on the environment.

Maybe I'm quibbling with your word 'inherent.' We are a social animal, so we need to either adjust ourselves to the people around us or else suffer. Does that mean we have 'an inherent duty' to it? I'd probably vote not. First, because the sociopaths among us seems extremely successful at times. Second, because we can refuse to adjust and thereby self-destruct.

Ought we to do our duty to each other and the environment? I myself feel that ought, but it's hard for me to assert that some cosmic ought exists out there.

Oh, that is regrettably very true. But that in no way makes that morally acceptable.

I'm not sure what that means... morally acceptable. Do you mean 'not morally acceptable to Luis'? Or something more than that?

See, that is one of the most significant differences between animals and people. People are capable of ethical thought, and that makes us morally responsible as well.

Sometimes I agree; sometimes, not so much.

To a certain degree, sure. And there will definitely be some core values universally accepted, much as the repudiation of slavery is already one such value.

So I have a couple of questions for you: When we one day reconstitute Neanderthal, will it be OK to enslave him? How about chimps? Dolphins? Honeybees? Do you think we'll ever advance so far as to repudiate the enslavement and killing of cattle -- or do you think that Homo Sapiens is the only creature we must not enslave?

They're just questions which confuse my moral certainty, so I like to hear others wrangle with them.

Truth is, western societies have little to teach of moral values except perhaps for freedom.

I'm almost entirely apolitical. Sorry.

 

[LuisDantas]

So I have a couple of questions for you: When we one day reconstitute Neanderthal, will it be OK to enslave him?

If by slavery you mean keeping him around against his will, I suppose not. It really depends on how clear an intent of remaining or leaving he expresses.

Would you say that domestic dogs are slaves?

How about chimps? Dolphins? Honeybees? Do you think we'll ever advance so far as to repudiate the enslavement and killing of cattle

Sure. We're halfway there already.

-- or do you think that Homo Sapiens is the only creature we must not enslave?

Of course not. Any sentient species - or any sensible creature that we have no true need to contain - ought to be kept free.

They're just questions which confuse my moral certainty, so I like to hear others wrangle with them.

Maybe we should create another thread.

I'm almost entirely apolitical. Sorry.

Uh? What did I say that involved politics?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Uh? What did I say that involved politics?

The 'West vs. Rest' thing seems political to me, although I could have called it cultural. You talked about Western societies having little to teach the rest of the world. To me, that seems like an argument about political organization more than anything, but they're just words. Sorry if mine threw you off.

Another thread on morality is fine, but only if you care enough to create it.

 

[pururun]

AFAIK...
i'm against "mocking against religion"
even so people can easily be offended by many things.....

i wish for religious harmony but i cant imagine if some people abuse the law to another

 

[LuisDantas]

The 'West vs. Rest' thing seems political to me, although I could have called it cultural. You talked about Western societies having little to teach the rest of the world. To me, that seems like an argument about political organization more than anything, but they're just words. Sorry if mine threw you off.

Another thread on morality is fine, but only if you care enough to create it.

Nah, it is fine. However, I would like to point out that it was your choice to introduce the political element in post #799. Or did I misunderstand you?

 

[Desert Snake]

I haven't read the law however I'm going to give a pre-emptive answer of "no" on that.
I'm a big fan of freedom of speech.

 

[pururun]

another thing to add as the others mentioned...
if we felt offended we should clarify in a mannered way. through dialog, or protest in peace...

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Nah, it is fine. However, I would like to point out that it was your choice to introduce the political element in post #799. Or did I misunderstand you?

I used the word 'political' in that message and then explained my usage in the followup message, so I'm not sure what you're asking now. Did you misunderstand me? I'm guessing so. It's rare that any two people have the exact same understanding of any particular word. For example, your 'inherent morality' still doesn't make sense to me.

But that's mostly why we talk, I think, at least in a place like this.