Morality Made Simple

[Nakosis]

Morality, rarely, if ever, enter my thinking.

It's your thinking. No reason for me to doubt that.
I just wasn't sure what you meant by "being mindful".

 

[joe1776]

I think group morals are, but that doesn't necessarily provide a standard between groups.

The ways that people might insult each other varies widely between groups but since insults cause harm, it is always wrong to intentionally insult innocent people in every culture (See #2)

 

[YmirGF]

But morality tends to become so ingrained into us that we are often unaware of it.

For examples, what's your reaction to the thought of child molestation? having sex with your children? walking nude downtown? [these are obviously rhetorical questions]

I understand, @metis but I never think in moralistic terms. I see child molestation as wrong simply because an adult is intruding on the body of a child who cannot make a proper decision based on endless coercion possibilities. Doing that to anyone is simply not the thing to do. I don't moralize it beyond that.

I don't have children, that I'm aware of, but I also see having sex with family members as just something that is plain wrong. I don't get hung up on the moral implications. It's just wrong.

Though, as an act of mercy, I would not walk down the street naked, I do not see doing so as morally wrong or even wrong. Our society has decided long before I came along that such an endeavor was not cool.

 

[YmirGF]

It's your thinking. No reason for me to doubt that.
I just wasn't sure what you meant by "being mindful".

It is a bit vague, admittedly, but in this sense, I'm meaning paying attention to your desires and balancing them off of what your society think is okie dokie and how your actions will affect both you and those around you. It's a pretty self-correcting thing.

 

[Nakosis]

Intent is a major factor.

If I intent to do harm, it's because my intuition is telling me it is necessary at that moment. So as I see it, intent relies on intuition. So saying intent seems a redundant way of relying on intuition.

I wouldn't agree. I think, given all the facts of a specific case, unbiased minds will agree on whether the act is right or wrong.

I think feelings bias minds. And rarely are we given all facts. Therefore at the moment of choosing your action, these factors wouldn't exist.
Perhaps after the fact we can pass moral judgement, but even then having both unbiased mines and all the facts is a rare occurrence.

I don't think so. Those things will have a bearing on how we act but will not change the guidance of conscience.

Do you see the guidance of conscience as something other than the feelings provided by your subconscious mind?

Genetics affect our personality at birth, which affects our interaction with the world which ultimately affects our feelings. Culture plus genetics are the foundation of our feelings. The wiring you spoke of. What else do you think would add to that?

I think there is a cross-cultural conscience for unbiased minds. The differences are due to traditional cultural biases which will disappear in time. The acceptance of slavery was a traditional cultural bias which has almost disappeared.

Again, I suppose I don't believe in the existence of an unbiased mind. Maybe they exist but I don't recall ever running into one. Maybe gods, ghosts or aliens for space exist but I haven't ran into any. So until then I don't base my arguments on their existence.

Once again, you won't see conscience as cross-cultural until you remember that we need unbiased minds to judge.

Maybe at some future time when we no longer rely on feelings? But doesn't that only leave us with reason? Computers weighing validated values.

No, I'm saying that making moral rules and laws about such things is an error.

So no rules just go with your gut feeling in these cases? Or the feelings of unbiased minds if they can be ever found to exist, but feelings cause bias so unfeeling minds. You have feelings which are biased and reasoned which is unbiased. The guidance of conscience is your feelings which is biased.

I assume you think the guidance of conscience is something other than your feeling? If so what?

If it doesn't feel wrong. If you don't feel shame or guilt, then it's not wrong (unless you never feel anything wrong because you're a sociopath).

I never feel wrong because I don't intend harm to innocents. Why would I, if they are innocent there's no value to me in doing so. However who I determine is innocent or not maybe different than who you or someone else determines is innocent. So you could see my actions as immoral whereas I could see them as perfectly moral.

You moral guidance is still followed by both of us though we end up with a moral disagreement.

I simplified judgments on abortion, prostitution and euthanasia in my OP. What other moral judgments would you like me to make?

Well, I'm not arguing that your moral guidance doesn't work. Just that it doesn't necessarily provide agreement among different folks as to what action is moral.

IOW different people could follow your guideline and still have opposing views as to what is moral.

I suppose the main disagreement I have is the existence of unbiased minds.

If you have 1000 computers, all with the same programming, all giving the same weight to the same values if provided all the same information barring technical issues they'd all arrive at the same answer.

The human mind however doesn't work like that. We have different programming and we have different values.

 

[Nakosis]

It is a bit vague, admittedly, but in this sense, I'm meaning paying attention to your desires and balancing them off of what your society think is okie dokie and how your actions will affect both you and those around you. It's a pretty self-correcting thing.

Dude! That's what I said. I just call what society thinks is okie dokie group morals. Society morals is what society feels is okie dokie.

Did you have some other concept of what morality is in mind?

I don't see morals as a defined set of rules. If society takes some of what it feels as okie dokie and makes them hard fast rules, those are laws. IMO I suppose. Just makes it simpler for me to deal with concepts involving morals.

 

[Nakosis]

I agree, and this is an area whereas religion has helped to build bridges. But, unfortunately, some have used religion to build more walls.

Abrahamic religions...
My Boss from India says they have lots of gods, lots of holidays during December. No one has any problem worshiping and celebrating whichever God of their choosing.

Well until the Muslims invasions.

 

[joe1776]

If I intent to do harm, it's because my intuition is telling me it is necessary at that moment. So as I see it, intent relies on intuition. So saying intent seems a redundant way of relying on intuition.

Intent involves an act of will generated by your conscious self. If you intentionally harm someone, then feel ashamed, that feeling of shame is an intuitive judgment of conscience.

I think feelings bias minds. And rarely are we given all facts. Therefore at the moment of choosing your action, these factors wouldn't exist. Perhaps after the fact we can pass moral judgement, but even then having both unbiased mines and all the facts is a rare occurrence.

I didn't understand that. Give me an example of a moral choice of the kind you are talking about.

Do you see the guidance of conscience as something other than the feelings provided by your subconscious mind?

No.

Genetics affect our personality at birth, which affects our interaction with the world which ultimately affects our feelings. Culture plus genetics are the foundation of our feelings. The wiring you spoke of. What else do you think would add to that?

I have no idea. But I'm sure that the personality is a collection of the attitudes of the conscious self while the feelings of conscience come from the subconscious.

Again, I suppose I don't believe in the existence of an unbiased mind. Maybe they exist but I don't recall ever running into one.

It's only necessary for one's mind to be unbiased on the moral case in question. For example, if we are sentencing a man convicted of rape, we don't ask the mother of the rapist or the father of the victim to judge because they are biased. If we want a fair sentence, we need unbiased minds to judge.

So no rules just go with your gut feeling in these cases? Or the feelings of unbiased minds if they can be ever found to exist, but feelings cause bias so unfeeling minds. You have feelings which are biased and reasoned which is unbiased. The guidance of conscience is your feelings which is biased.

I didn't follow that.

I assume you think the guidance of conscience is something other than your feeling? If so what?

Feeling of shame, guilt, remorse, moral outrage guide us when an act is morally wrong. Together such feelings comprise conscience.

I never feel wrong because I don't intend harm to innocents. Why would I, if they are innocent there's no value to me in doing so. However who I determine is innocent or not maybe different than who you or someone else determines is innocent. So you could see my actions as immoral whereas I could see them as perfectly moral.You moral guidance is still followed by both of us though we end up with a moral disagreement.

Give me an example of a case in which we might differ.

Well, I'm not arguing that your moral guidance doesn't work. Just that it doesn't necessarily provide agreement among different folks as to what action is moral.

My position is that when two minds differ on the morality of the same moral case, one of them is wrong because of a bias affecting judgment.

IOW different people could follow your guideline and still have opposing views as to what is moral.
I suppose the main disagreement I have is the existence of unbiased minds.

As I said earlier, that's because you are thinking that the mind has to be completely unbiased. I doesn't. It only has to be unbiased on the moral case in question.

 

[Nakosis]

Intent involves an act of will generated by your conscious self. If you intentionally harm someone, then feel ashamed, that feeling of shame is an intuitive judgment of conscience.

Yes, you are relying on an individuals feelings as to whether they are acting immoral or not. I'm not disagreeing.

I didn't understand that.

Basically you say for this to work as a standard it requires unbiased minds. Since unbiased minds IMO don't exist it wouldn't work as a means to achieve a standard moral judgement. Different folks means different judgments as to what is moral.

Give me an example of a moral choice of the kind you are talking about.

Ok, for example, what I feel is right is all white folks are inherently evil. It's what my Pa taught me and I've no reason to question it. So I feel good about killing white folks. I'm making the world less evil by doing so. As long as I don't feel I'm doing something wrong, it's not immoral for me to kill white folks based on your test for moral behavior.

No.

Ok, just checking

I have no idea. But I'm sure that the personality is a collection of the attitudes of the conscious self while the feelings of conscience come from the subconscious.

A lot of personality traits are caused by genetics. An easy one is whether your are introverted or extroverted. IOW whether you feel good about being around other folks or not. Since these traits vary from individual to individual, their feelings about different circumstances would vary from individual to individual.

It's only necessary for one's mind to be unbiased on the moral case in question. For example, if we are sentencing a man convicted of rape, we don't ask the mother of the rapist or the father of the victim to judge because they are biased. If we want a fair sentence, we need unbiased minds to judge.

The introvert might want to put away as many folks as possible, since they don't feel good about dealing with people while the extrovert would prefer to keep them around.

I didn't follow that.

While a person might be unbiased about the case, they maybe biased about other things like the introvert.

Feeling of shame, guilt, remorse, moral outrage guide us when an act is morally wrong. Together such feelings comprise conscience.

Ok, I just don't expect all folks to feel the same shame, guilt, etc... about the same circumstance, even if they are not an otherwise interested party. That's kind of our jury system. They each bring their personal bias even though the bias may not be related directly to the case.

Give me an example of a case in which we might differ.

Lets say I'm a Jew, so the sacrifice of an animal as a payment for sin I feel good about. I am just offering up to God what God created. You on the other hand are an animal activist. You see the animal as a innocent creature so find the action immoral.

My position is that when two minds differ on the morality of the same moral case, one of them is wrong because of a bias affecting judgment.

Bias affects judgment, whether that bias is related to the case or not. Like the jury system again. Ideally the folks on the jury have no bias with regard to the case. However some unrelated bias can as easily cause them to vote guilty or not guilty. Also we never have all of the information. We rely on our bias, our feelings to fill in where information is lacking.

As I said earlier, that's because you are thinking that the mind has to be completely unbiased. I doesn't. It only has to be unbiased on the moral case in question.

Ok, unbiased as far as the case at hand goes still seems difficult to achieve. There are hidden biases that folks aren't even consciously aware of. Most folks can't control their feelings. They are just magically presented to the conscious mind by the subconscious.

Since it is subconscious, we are completely unaware of all the many things that the subconscious uses to produce whatever we happen to be feeling. I just don't see, even in making a superhuman attempt to be unbiased that there's a guaranteed consistency of conscience guidance among folks.

trying to sum it up, bias not consciously related to the moral issue at hand will affect the judgement of the individual as to whether something is moral or not.

While you feel you are unbiased with regard to the moral issue at hand, that is likely untrue.These hidden, subconscious biases could cause inconsistencies in moral judgement even though they themselves feel they've been completely unbiased through the judgement process.

So you could still end up with folks opposing each other as to what is the proper moral action to take while both honestly feeling they've made a completely unbiased judgement.

 

[Ponder This]

1. Don't use your reasoning function to make moral rules or laws and don't be guided by moral rules or laws about any type of act like killing, stealing, incest, lying, and so on.

Are you suggesting we should live without laws altogether? Anarchy? And if not, then how are these laws to be made?

2. An act is immoral if it intentionally harms an innocent person.

Fetuses are alive. Fetuses are innocent. Abortion intentionally harms fetuses. The "innocent person" is a common theme in moral dilemmas.

3. Any act is moral if it is done in self-defense, to protect innocent others, and when the harm done is only sufficient to stop the attack.

Quandary: when making the decision to act in self-defense and to protect innocent others, how can you know that the harm done will only be that which is sufficient to stop the attack? You can't know. Therefore, this guideline is impractical. If someone is judging, how is he to know that the attack could not have been stopped with less force? Therefore, this guideline is impractical from that point of view also.

4. Any act is moral if it does the least harm in a moral dilemma.When two option both feel intuitively wrong, the reasoning function of the brain probably weighs for the lesser harm and makes the final judgment.
5. If an act is morally wrong, it will immediately feel wrong. The judgment will be followed by a desire to see the wrongdoer punished.
6. If an act is unfair, it will immediately feel unfair and it will be hard to explain why it is unfair.

Since the morality is personally subjective. It is possible for two people to completely disagree on the morality and both be right.

7. Intentionally endangering innocent people is morally wrong.

Traffic accidents cause harm but, absent the intent to harm, they are not immoral.(See #2)

Road crashes rank as the 9th leading cause of death and account for 2.2% of all deaths globally. Now that you are informed, is it still moral for you to drive? Is it okay if there is no intent to harm even though you know you are putting others at risk?

"Abortion is murder!" This self-made moral rule (See #1) forms a bias which sends judgment off course. The judgment of murder is unconfirmed when there is no desire to see the woman who terminates her pregnancy severely punished (See #5).

So.. it isn't murder as long as you only desire to see the woman lightly punished? Interesting.

The countries which legalize prostitution are morally right since there is no harm done to an innocent person (See #2).

I see, so it's morally fine to harm people as long as they aren't innocent. I may even start to feel justified. After all, they aren't innocent.

The states which allow euthanasia are morally right because the intent is not to harm but to prevent suffering (See #2).

Are you certain you do not suffer... unnecessarily?

You should not kill, (See #1) when interpreted as a general rule is useless when we need guidance in a specific case which could be an exception. And when interpreted as an absolute rule -- You should never kill -- it becomes a bias which will send judgment off course when we are presented with a clear case of self-defense (See #3).

Which is the higher moral act: to kill your foe or to cease to defend yourself?

The Christian law prohibiting fornication should be ignored (See #1). Consensual sex between two adults who aren't cheating on anyone is not immoral because there's no intent to harm an innocent person (See #2).

So... it's not wrong... as long as we agree it isn't wrong.

The writers of the TV series 24 gave Kiefer Sutherland a moral dilemma every week. In one show, he murdered a friend in order to save thousands in L.A. from a dirty bomb. There is no act that is always immoral since a real life moral dilemma could offer it up as the lesser harm. (See #4)

So... it's not wrong as long as I force you to do something just as bad if you don't obey. There's no reason for you to feel guilty. We can justify lots of things as long as I threaten to kill you...

Driving drunk is morally wrong because it intentionally endangers innocent people (See #7).

Driving intentionally endangers people. I won't vouch for their innocence though.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

This is my first trial run of my proposal that morality can be made simple. It begins by assuming that we humans are much too proud of our ability to reason. Because of that, we have complicated and confused the relatively simple problem of using our intuitive moral sense (conscience) to make judgments.

We have two brain functions involved in making judgments on moral questions. The reasoning function will collect the facts involved in a specific case. The moral instincts function will then take over and make an instinctive judgment on questions that concern right or wrong and fair or unfair.

Seven guidelines learned from our intuitive moral sense (conscience):

1. Don't use your reasoning function to make moral rules or laws and don't be guided by moral rules or laws about any type of act like killing, stealing, incest, lying, and so on.

2. An act is immoral if it intentionally harms an innocent person.

3. Any act is moral if it is done in self-defense, to protect innocent others, and when the harm done is only sufficient to stop the attack.

4. Any act is moral if it does the least harm in a moral dilemma.When two option both feel intuitively wrong, the reasoning function of the brain probably weighs for the lesser harm and makes the final judgment.

5. If an act is morally wrong, it will immediately feel wrong. The judgment will be followed by a desire to see the wrongdoer punished.

6. If an act is unfair, it will immediately feel unfair and it will be hard to explain why it is unfair.

7. Intentionally endangering innocent people is morally wrong.


Some examples:

Traffic accidents cause harm but, absent the intent to harm, they are not immoral.(See #2)

"Abortion is murder!" This self-made moral rule (See #1) forms a bias which sends judgment off course. The judgment of murder is unconfirmed when there is no desire to see the woman who terminates her pregnancy severely punished (See #5).

The countries which legalize prostitution are morally right since there is no harm done to an innocent person (See #2).

The states which allow euthanasia are morally right because the intent is not to harm but to prevent suffering (See #2).

You should not kill, (See #1) when interpreted as a general rule is useless when we need guidance in a specific case which could be an exception. And when interpreted as an absolute rule -- You should never kill -- it becomes a bias which will send judgment off course when we are presented with a clear case of self-defense (See #3).

The Christian law prohibiting fornication should be ignored (See #1). Consensual sex between two adults who aren't cheating on anyone is not immoral because there's no intent to harm an innocent person (See #2).

The writers of the TV series 24 gave Kiefer Sutherland a moral dilemma every week. In one show, he murdered a friend in order to save thousands in L.A. from a dirty bomb. There is no act that is always immoral since a real life moral dilemma could offer it up as the lesser harm. (See #4)

Driving drunk is morally wrong because it intentionally endangers innocent people (See #7).

I invite criticism, but please bear in mind that if you add facts or alter the facts in any of my examples, you haven't challenged my judgment, you have presented a different moral case.

Questions or comments?

Each and everyone of your 7 points is a value statement, and a moral judgement! I suppose if all the world bowed to your throne than morals would be easy.

Note that no. 2 and no. 3 can be in direct conflict if I am in a situation that i must chose between killing a single innocent individual for the sake of saving a dozen.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't think that honesty is paramount. If a dishonest act could save thousands of lives, would honesty be more important than morality?

I wasn't really thinking in terms of "honesty" as in "always telling the truth." I was thinking more in terms of one's own personal morality, as long as they're honest about it and practice it consistently.

 

[joe1776]

Ok, for example, what I feel is right is all white folks are inherently evil. It's what my Pa taught me and I've no reason to question it. So I feel good about killing white folks. I'm making the world less evil by doing so. As long as I don't feel I'm doing something wrong, it's not immoral for me to kill white folks based on your test for moral behavior.

Your bias against white people would have you violating #2 on my list.

A lot of personality traits are caused by genetics. An easy one is whether your are introverted or extroverted. IOW whether you feel good about being around other folks or not. Since these traits vary from individual to individual, their feelings about different circumstances would vary from individual to individual.

So, what does this have to do with their morality?

While a person might be unbiased about the case, they maybe biased about other things like the introvert.

It wouldn't matter -- as long as they aren't biased about the specific moral case in question.

 

[joe1776]

Each and everyone of your 7 points is a value statement, and a moral judgement! I suppose if all the world bowed to your throne than morals would be easy.

I think we humans share a cross-cultural conscience -- which means that those guidelines I listed are yours as well. Which of the examples I listed do you disagree with and why?

Note that no. 2 and no. 3 can be in direct conflict if I am in a situation that i must chose between killing a single innocent individual for the sake of saving a dozen.

Read #4

 

[Nakosis]

Your bias against white people would have you violating #2 on my list.

Why? They ain't innocent. My intuition tells me all white folks, they can't help but be corrupted by their white privilege.

Not that I feel that way but I've come across folks who do. The point is, who someone sees as innocent is a judgement. The determination of innocence is not universal.

So, what does this have to do with their morality?

Feelings, morality is based on feelings. What we feel, is not universal. We may have some feelings in common because of a common culture. That doesn't mean all feelings about what is right and what is wrong are going to be the same.

It wouldn't matter -- as long as they aren't biased about the specific moral case in question.

Fine, like I said, I'm not arguing against your process of determining what is moral as long as you accept that we may still pass different moral judgements on the same event/action/behavior.

 

[joe1776]

Why? They ain't innocent. My intuition tells me all white folks, they can't help but be corrupted by their white privilege.

Your intuition didn't create the bias. That racist attitude grew out of your personality. Your actions, if judged by unbiased minds, would be found immoral.

Feelings, morality is based on feelings. What we feel, is not universal. We may have some feelings in common because of a common culture. That doesn't mean all feelings about what is right and what is wrong are going to be the same.

Shame, guilt, remorse, moral outrage -- these are the only feeling needed to make moral judgments.

Fine, like I said, I'm not arguing against your process of determining what is moral as long as you accept that we may still pass different moral judgements on the same event/action/behavior.

If we do, one of is is wrong because of a bias.

 

[james bond]

This is my first trial run of my proposal that morality can be made simple. It begins by assuming that we humans are much too proud of our ability to reason. Because of that, we have complicated and confused the relatively simple problem of using our intuitive moral sense (conscience) to make judgments.

We have two brain functions involved in making judgments on moral questions. The reasoning function will collect the facts involved in a specific case. The moral instincts function will then take over and make an instinctive judgment on questions that concern right or wrong and fair or unfair.

Seven guidelines learned from our intuitive moral sense (conscience):

1. Don't use your reasoning function to make moral rules or laws and don't be guided by moral rules or laws about any type of act like killing, stealing, incest, lying, and so on.

2. An act is immoral if it intentionally harms an innocent person.

3. Any act is moral if it is done in self-defense, to protect innocent others, and when the harm done is only sufficient to stop the attack.

4. Any act is moral if it does the least harm in a moral dilemma.When two option both feel intuitively wrong, the reasoning function of the brain probably weighs for the lesser harm and makes the final judgment.

5. If an act is morally wrong, it will immediately feel wrong. The judgment will be followed by a desire to see the wrongdoer punished.

6. If an act is unfair, it will immediately feel unfair and it will be hard to explain why it is unfair.

7. Intentionally endangering innocent people is morally wrong.


Some examples:

Traffic accidents cause harm but, absent the intent to harm, they are not immoral.(See #2)

"Abortion is murder!" This self-made moral rule (See #1) forms a bias which sends judgment off course. The judgment of murder is unconfirmed when there is no desire to see the woman who terminates her pregnancy severely punished (See #5).

The countries which legalize prostitution are morally right since there is no harm done to an innocent person (See #2).

The states which allow euthanasia are morally right because the intent is not to harm but to prevent suffering (See #2).

You should not kill, (See #1) when interpreted as a general rule is useless when we need guidance in a specific case which could be an exception. And when interpreted as an absolute rule -- You should never kill -- it becomes a bias which will send judgment off course when we are presented with a clear case of self-defense (See #3).

The Christian law prohibiting fornication should be ignored (See #1). Consensual sex between two adults who aren't cheating on anyone is not immoral because there's no intent to harm an innocent person (See #2).

The writers of the TV series 24 gave Kiefer Sutherland a moral dilemma every week. In one show, he murdered a friend in order to save thousands in L.A. from a dirty bomb. There is no act that is always immoral since a real life moral dilemma could offer it up as the lesser harm. (See #4)

Driving drunk is morally wrong because it intentionally endangers innocent people (See #7).

I invite criticism, but please bear in mind that if you add facts or alter the facts in any of my examples, you haven't challenged my judgment, you have presented a different moral case.

Questions or comments?

Your sense of morals leads to what exactly? Does it mean that you are judged as good by others and this fulfills your need? Or does it mean that you become more confident in yourself because you believe you're a good person and also fulfills a need? For some reason, you bring Christianity into it. Christianity does not prohibit fornication. Why bring Christianity into this at all?

 

[joe1776]

Your sense of morals leads to what exactly? Does it mean that you are judged as good by others and this fulfills your need? Or does it mean that you become more confident in yourself because you believe you're a good person and also fulfills a need? For some reason, you bring Christianity into it. Christianity does not prohibit fornication. Why bring Christianity into this at all?

The purpose of my thread was as stated in the OP. It was not to speculate on deeper psychological motives for wanting to make the right moral choices.

Why not mention a Christian moral rule?

Here's the Catholic rule on it: Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.[103]

 

[Nakosis]

Your intuition didn't create the bias. That racist attitude grew out of your personality. Your actions, if judged by unbiased minds, would find your acts immoral.

It's hard for me to accept the existence of a mind not biased by something.

Shame, guilt, remorse, moral outrage -- these are the only feeling needed to make moral judgments.

Generally, my shame, guilt, remorse, moral outrage, I can control. I've become detached from the feelings created by my subconscious mind. I can choose to be effected by them or choose not to. I can even cause them. I can choose to feel happy or sad. It's not all the time, but it's more certain with practice. Shame, guilt, remorse, moral outrage I see as having no value. They're unnecessary. So I don't see their value in determining what is moral.

If we do, one of is is wrong because of a bias.

One of us is wrong because the other passed a judgement based on their feelings.

I don't see a need for universal morality. We don't all have to agree what is right and wrong in every case. We can still have enough common values to agree on what is acceptable behavior between us.

You mind is biased by shame, guilt, remorse, moral outrage. My mind is not. Still we could probably find common moral ground based on other values.

 

[james bond]

The purpose of my thread was as stated in the OP. It was not to speculate on deeper psychological motives for wanting to make the right moral choices.

Why not mention a Christian moral rule?

Here's the Catholic rule on it: Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.[103]

Last point first, that's Catholic which is much more strict than general Christianity. I would guess you meant pre-marital sex and that leads to the problem of an unwanted pregnancy. Or one uses the other for sex, i.e. the parties had different ideas of what it would lead to or meant. We aren't honest in our dealings. What rules apply to this?

What I was getting at was does it lead to a final judgment that most religions have in some form. It implies some kind of an afterlife. Or are you treating this like trying to be just or fair in moral dealings with people such as we have business, criminal or civil law?