What do you find immoral?

[bedstuy]

I can't really answer this.  For any action, I could come up with a hypothetical situation where these things are immoral or moral.  A serious moral judgement has to take into account the facts and circumstances of the situation at hand.

Homosexuality: Immoral (I took this to mean the act of homosexual sex, not orientation)

That's a lot to ask of someone, to forgo sex and intimate relationships.  I wonder if moral is ever the right word for this fundamentalist Christian idea.  Homosexuality is a taboo from back in the day, but it's certainly not wrong in the way stealing is wrong.  What's the moral reasoning there?

[bedstuy]

I checked "Stem cell research". Presuming you used it as a shorthand for "human embryonic stem cell research",  the available evidence indicates that we can get the same benefits without breaking up embryos.  Given the potential ethical issues, and the lack of clear benefits, we never should have rushed ahead with human embryonic stem cell research until we had verified that non-embryonic techniques would not work as well as embryonic techniques.  Unfortunately we do tend to rush ahead in science without bothering to adequately consider the moral implications of some lines of research.

Don't you generally need to use human cells to repair human tissue?  I thought the idea was that we could use adult human stem cells instead of embyonic stem cells.

But, I don't see the ethical problem anyway.  IVF creates more than enough unused embryos for research.  If the choice is letting the embryos die from freezer burn or using them for research, I don't see the ethical problem. 

[bedstuy]

I checked "Stem cell research". Presuming you used it as a shorthand for "human embryonic stem cell research",  the available evidence indicates that we can get the same benefits without breaking up embryos.  Given the potential ethical issues, and the lack of clear benefits, we never should have rushed ahead with human embryonic stem cell research until we had verified that non-embryonic techniques would not work as well as embryonic techniques.  Unfortunately we do tend to rush ahead in science without bothering to adequately consider the moral implications of some lines of research.

Don't you generally need to use human cells to repair human tissue?  I thought the idea was that we could use adult human stem cells instead of embyonic stem cells.

But, I don't see the ethical problem anyway.  IVF creates more than enough unused embryos for research.  If the choice is letting the embryos die from freezer burn or using them for research, I don't see the ethical problem. 

Or perhaps IVF techniques shouldn't be creating unused embryos in the first place.

I'm not a scientist, but I assume they have good reasons for creating a bunch of embryos.  People want to have kids who need IVF and I think that takes precedence over a fairly minor ethical complaint.

[bedstuy]

Just realized I never responded to these. Whoops.

Homosexuality: Immoral (I took this to mean the act of homosexual sex, not orientation)

That's a lot to ask of someone, to forgo sex and intimate relationships.  I wonder if moral is ever the right word for this fundamentalist Christian idea.  Homosexuality is a taboo from back in the day, but it's certainly not wrong in the way stealing is wrong.  What's the moral reasoning there?

"It's haaard" is a pretty silly reason to reject any moral view.

That's not really my point.  If you are going to ask another person to ruin their own life, there is a burden of proof on you.  For most people, "my interpretation of the Bible says so" is just a silly argument.  Would you at least admit, taking the Bible out of it, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality? 

I think the average reasonable Christian view is the following:  The Bible is largely metaphorical and poetic.  There are myths and non-historical tall tales in the Bible that never actually happened.
And furthermore, the Bible was written by fallible human beings, based on oral traditions and textual mistranslations so not every detail is true on a sentence level.

Taking that into account, you have to interpret the Bible using common sense.  If the Bible appears to say something absurd, like the creation story or that homosexuality is wrong, you have to find a non-absurd interpretation. 

[bedstuy]

I think the average reasonable Christian view is the following:  The Bible is largely metaphorical and poetic.  There are myths and non-historical tall tales in the Bible that never actually happened.
And furthermore, the Bible was written by fallible human beings, based on oral traditions and textual mistranslations so not every detail is true on a sentence level.

I don't know of any Christians that think that.  My view is that if a supreme being that created the Universe were to write a book I as a humble human being probably wouldn't necessarily get all of it.

You don't know any reasonable Christians.  Among the people I've gone to school with, known, worked with, etc, the idea that homosexuality is immoral would be considered ridiculous.

One thing is written in the Bible... We are all sinners.  Heterosexuals are sinners and homosexuals are sinners.  Our lot in life is just to try and be good people.  We all break the commandments of God at one time or another.  If someone asks me what is immoral I will list what I was taught from the Bible is immoral.  If someone asks me whether that list impacts my interactions with other human beings I will say on a lot of things no.  Would I refuse to hire someone because they had premarital sex?  No.  Would I refuse to hire someone because they had homosexual sex?  No.

Well, that's orthogonal to the point at hand.  What if I said the same thing about having brown hair?  "I don't mind working with brown haired people, after all, we're all sinners and I forgive them for having brown hair." 

[bedstuy]

Well, that's orthogonal to the point at hand.  What if I said the same thing about having brown hair?  "I don't mind working with brown haired people, after all, we're all sinners and I forgive them for having brown hair." 

Brown hair is an immutable characteristic. Having sex with people of your own gender is not. I'm not defending bigotry, only pointing out that immutable characteristics vs. personal choice is the underlying legal complication in same-sex rights and so forth.

No.  I'm fine with people having naturally brown hair, if that's how God made them.  But, it's immoral for them to choose to grow brown hair of their own choice.  They can easily shave their hair or dye it another color so it's not an abomination before God.  That's easier than choosing to live a life without sex or intimate relations.  Am I right?

[bedstuy]

No.  I'm fine with people having naturally brown hair, if that's how God made them.  But, it's immoral for them to choose to grow brown hair of their own choice.  They can easily shave their hair or dye it another color so it's not an abomination before God.  That's easier than choosing to live a life without sex or intimate relations.  Am I right?

No, you're not right. But the law recognizes your right to make the distinction between orientation and action. It should remain that way, even if it complicates matters.

I guess that's true in some sense.  But, neither gay sex nor gay orientation are immoral.  And gay sex is fundamental right under the US Constitution.  So, it's a frivolous point.

[bedstuy]

I guess that's true in some sense.  But, neither gay sex nor gay orientation are immoral.  And gay sex is fundamental right under the US Constitution.  So, it's a frivolous point.

If you try to think of counterarguments to the discriminatory hypothetical argument you made, it's difficult to find a legal remedy within the current framework or to imagine a new legal remedy. The easy way is to say that sexual orientation = sexual behavior; therefore, immutable characteristic and strict scrutiny. However, treating sexual orientation as an immutable characteristic opens a Pandora's box by undermining the current system.

That's why legal progress is slow and deliberate. That's my only point.

I don't understand your point at all.  The exact contours of sexual orientation in Constitutional law are in flux as is the terminology.  But, practically, it's ridiculous to say both that: Homosexuality is wrong and homosexual behavior is wrong.  Plus, people have sex.  That's sort of a good default assumption.

[bedstuy]

That's not really my point.  If you are going to ask another person to ruin their own life, there is a burden of proof on you.  For most people, "my interpretation of the Bible says so" is just a silly argument.  Would you at least admit, taking the Bible out of it, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality? 

Yes, but I would admit that for every facet of my morality from shoplifting on up through murder. If there was no God I'd be a moral nihilist.

Just ethically then.  If you don't understand why murder is ethically wrong, aside from your belief in God's rule on murder, you're mentally ill.  That sounds strident, but it's true.  That's an intellectually dishonest position to take.

I think the average reasonable Christian view is the following:  The Bible is largely metaphorical and poetic.  There are myths and non-historical tall tales in the Bible that never actually happened. And furthermore, the Bible was written by fallible human beings, based on oral traditions and textual mistranslations so not every detail is true on a sentence level.

Speaking as a practising Christian with a very wide group of contacts, that's simply not the case. I mean, most Christians would agree that parts of the Bible are metaphorical or poetical, but full throttle view you're describing is almost exclusively the domain of the liberal Protestant sects. This is even more true once you eliminate Chreasters from the sample.

That's my experience.  Maybe it's that I've lived only among educated, cosmopolitan people in a few major US cities.  But, ideas like homosexuality being immoral or biblical literalism are not really considered normal among people I've known.

Taking that into account, you have to interpret the Bible using common sense.  If the Bible appears to say something absurd, like the creation story or that homosexuality is wrong, you have to find a non-absurd interpretation. 

Let's back up here a second. You keep using loaded terminology like rational and absurd. On what basis are you declaring things from the Bible rational or absurd?

To be honest, I know nothing about theology.  I've never been to a Christian sermon presentation.  I've never really read the Bible.  But, I know a good deal about interpreting specific meaning in a text so I have a valid, if unconventional, opinion on this stuff.

Here's what I mean:  Text generally has numerous potential meanings.  You can't truly understand something just from reading the words.  So, you have to use interpretative tools, you look at dictionaries, you look at the text in context, you compare similar text, you get to know the history when it was written, you learn about the author, etc. 

But, those don't always arrive at one clear meaning.  A good rule of thumb for resolving ambiguity is just common sense.  A meaning that is common-sensical should be preferred over a meaning that is absurd.  If one interpretation means the Earth is 6000 years old, it's an absurd interpretation, so you take another interpretation.  Similarly, the idea that homosexuality is immoral is absurd, so you need to find another way to understand the text. 

[bedstuy]

'Moral depravity'. Hardly, DC Al Fine seems like a thoroughly nice chap. I will say that (and I'm not trying to speak for DC Al Fine here), in a sense, Christianity is a very good bulwark against immorality. Now, you might say 'but not everyone shares the Christian view of morality' which is true. However, I think the vast majority of us would agree that things like murder, theft, adultery etc are basically morally wrong. However, it is also true that a lot of people will do things that are immoral even if they know what they are doing to be immoral, and, as you said, a mark of moral depravity. Which brings me to my next point; appealing to people's reason not to commit abhorrent acts is all well and good, but, to put it very bluntly, saying 'if you murder somebody then you'll burn in Hell forever and ever' can be a far more effective method of persuading people not to do things than actually trying to convince them using 'reason'.

Two responses to that point:

First, it's also effective to tell your kids that if they don't eat their vegetables, the boogie man will eat them while they sleep.  It doesn't mean that the reason vegetables are healthy is their boogie man deterrence value.  This isn't a discussion of how to control the masses, it's a question of whether something is right or wrong which is a question in itself, distinct from how you compel morally just behavior.

Second, actually knowing the "why" behind something is a key pedagogical tool.  If you tell someone, wear a seatbelt because I said so, they might well ignore you.  But, if you tell them, wear a seatbelt because it will prevent neck injuries and flying through the windshield at 40 MPH, that's more effective.  Ethics is a life-long intellectual pursuit.  "Because I said so" is effective for children and those who are on the intellectual level of children, but it's pretty basic.  What you want in society are people who understand why things are right and wrong, can question and interact with those ethical ideas, so they can apply them to new situations and complex problems presented by life.  By reducing morality to hellfire, you're actually giving yourself a tremendous ethical handicap in practice.

Now, I'll get to the most thorny problem for my argument, which is the existance of perfectly moral and nice atheists. Many exist, just as some thoroughly awful Christians (like that fellow Jim Jones et al) have and do exist. But, to some extent, their basic sense of morality, given to them by society, is still molded by Christianity.

No.  Maybe that's true to an extent, because our society is shaped by Christianity in fundamental ways.  But, it's also true that both secular morality and Christian cannon are shaped by Western intellectual culture and basic human ethical principles.  If the causality was running directly from Christianity, Japanese people would be pure evil. 

I mean, a lot of our, to put it very crudely, hangups, about killing humans (and I'm not just talking about plain and simple murder here, I'm talking about the death penalty, war, euthanasia and abortion among other things) are very Christian in their nature. Whilst this is certainly not exclusive to Christianity, or indeed religion in general, a basic belief in something like the sanctity of life is one of the central tenets of Christianity. This can be contrasted, quite heavily, with plenty of pre-Christian societies in Europe; I mean, the Romans weren't exactly overly concerned about the sanctity of life, as was shown by their regular slaughter-fests of both humans and animals at games and festivals (such practices, were, in general, only outlawed by Christian Emperors).

This argument is basically garbage.  Christians also did some of the most evil things in human history and have killed millions and millions of people.  There's no good evidence that Christian people are more or less ethical or moral than non-Christians.

Thus, I would argue that a belief in Christianity, or at least and acceptance of it, is one of those things which really keeps our society, our civilisation, rooted. There are, doubtless, plenty of atheists who would rather like to expunge Christianity from society, along with all of it's quaint hangups. But, once that's gone, what remains? Something has to take it's place. Will it be something that's rather gentle, like Christianity (after all, this is the religion that argues that you can ultimately obtain salvation as long as you genuinely repent of your sins, no matter what they are)? Or will it be something a little harsher, one rooted in the values of 'rationality', 'logic' and 'functionality'? My basic point is that, yes, not doing bad things because you're frightened perhaps isn't the most 'moral' reason for not doing them. But it's a hell of a lot better than doing those bad things anyway.

That's a complete false choice.  Nobody is proposing outlawing Christianity, nor is anyone proposing doing away with any positive, reasonable idea Christianity has contributed to our society. 

[bedstuy]

Similarly, the idea that homosexuality is immoral is absurd, so you need to find another way to understand the text. 

Here's what I was getting at: On what basis are you declaring opposition to homosexuality absurd? Creationism is a question of fact. Either it is or isn't true, and it's relatively easy to determine that. Morality is much more ambiguous.

Hmm, I think it's pretty self evident.  Just to be concise, homosexuality is necessary for the personal happiness of many people, while negatively impacting nobody and sexual orientation isn't a choice.  Whereas, if someone pretends to be straight or lives a sad life with no relationships or sex, they'll experience tremendous misery as will other people.

And, if we're determining whether something is immoral, the burden of proof ought to be on the person saying something is immoral. 

Just ethically then.  If you don't understand why murder is ethically wrong, aside from your belief in God's rule on murder, you're mentally ill.  That sounds strident, but it's true.  That's an intellectually dishonest position to take.

Now let's recap what moral nihlism is; it's the view that nothing is moral or immoral. It's not embracing evil acts like what Mordecai or Hockeydude were talking about. If I woke up a moral nihlist tomorrow, my behaviour wouldn't change very much at all. I'm a creature of habit, policemen exist, and it wouldn't change what 20 odd years of upbringing has imprinted on me.

Now getting to my main issue: If we are random piles of atoms brought together for a tiny amount of time in some unimportant corner of the universe as the atheists assert, where does morality come from? Why isn't this all meaningless?

You missed the point somewhat here and I went on to address this. 

There are two separate questions which you're conflating to dodge the question I originally asked.  There is the question of where morality comes from and the question of what is moral/ethical.  The question of where morality comes from is fairly academic.  You can get morality from God a priori or you can get morality from reason, experience and love for other people.