What do you find immoral?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'll just note that the position that there cannot be morality without God has a long tradition and is a legitimate viewpoint. You can disagree with it but it isn't absurd and the people who are saying so in this thread don't seem to fully grasp the concept.

Also, teenage sex? So, if you're 19 and married it'd be immoral to have sex? How can anyone think that?

  As one who does it myself at times, I can truly say there are few things more irritating than someone who uses a phrase as of its meaning depended upon the literal meaning of its component words rather than its actual meaning.

[DC Al Fine]

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.

It's hilarious how you always whine about how we supposedly portray socons unfairly, yet you manage to come up with posts that candidly summarize basically everything that's wrong with the religious right. You perfectly explained us why your political/religious views are a mark of moral depravity.

But as others have said, if you base everything you think is moral and immoral on what a book tells you and don't care why those laws are there and proclaim that you'd reject all morality if you didn't believe in a God, you're either seriously f**ked up in the head or you need to reevaluate yourself on, well, everything.  I don't know what else to tell you.

The basis of common sense.  Though frankly, it would seem you don't have it if you believe faith to be the only basis for your morality. 

Might as well address these all at once.

Let's see here, four insults and not a single attempt to address my view. This started well.

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?

Now please tell me one rational (yes) argument for why homosexual sex is wrong.  "The Bible says so," does not count, as "the Bible says so" also justifies slavery, the stoning of adulterers, and sexism.

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? On what basis can Tony call me morally depraved? What basis does Peter have for asserting that slavery, stoning or sexism is wrong?

[politicallefty]

What the hell is going on with people claiming suicide is immoral? What kind of rationale are these votes based on? This is utterly ridiculous.

I'd agree with you, but why do you think cloning humans (assuming no deformities or experimentation) is inherently immoral?

[Antonio the Sixth]

What the hell is going on with people claiming suicide is immoral? What kind of rationale are these votes based on? This is utterly ridiculous.

I'd agree with you, but why do you think cloning humans (assuming no deformities or experimentation) is inherently immoral?

Maybe it's not inherently immoral, but at the very least would raise a good number of very uncomfortable issues regarding personal identity, human rights, and eugenics, and could easily devolve into something very immoral.

[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. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

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?

Because we are humans, that is the single greatest entity in the known universe. We have always successfully striven to rise about our biologic determinants and build a world according to our own principles. We created the concept of morality, through our own personal and collective reflection.

[DemPGH]

Empathy and altruism and "morality," if we can go that far, are common in large brained mammals, like whales. It's because it aids survival. I suppose humans realize it aids stability too.

To answer the OP:

I checked 1) polygamy because it subjugates women, 2) animal testing, and of course 3) the death penalty.

Suicide is not nearly immoral as it is the result of some real serious personal or emotional issue and should be handled accordingly.

I could understand someone checking abortion as immoral, although I don't see that as any grounds whatsoever to ban it or restrict it beyond current levels.

[Lief 🗽]

What the hell is going on with people claiming suicide is immoral? What kind of rationale are these votes based on? This is utterly ridiculous.

Immoral things (for me) are actions that hurt innocent people. If you kill yourself, you're hurting your friends and loved ones emotionally. I guess that would be the argument. I don't think any of these actions are inherently immoral, but certainly if I had to pick suicide would be near the top of the list.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What the hell is going on with people claiming suicide is immoral? What kind of rationale are these votes based on? This is utterly ridiculous.

I'd agree with you, but why do you think cloning humans (assuming no deformities or experimentation) is inherently immoral?

Maybe it's not inherently immoral, but at the very least would raise a good number of very uncomfortable issues regarding personal identity, human rights, and eugenics, and could easily devolve into something very immoral.

I, for one, feel more or less the same way about suicide raising uncomfortable issues regarding responsibility to and for other people, although I tend to agree with DemPGH that moralizing the issue overmuch really is unhelpful.

[Antonio the Sixth]

What the hell is going on with people claiming suicide is immoral? What kind of rationale are these votes based on? This is utterly ridiculous.

I'd agree with you, but why do you think cloning humans (assuming no deformities or experimentation) is inherently immoral?

Maybe it's not inherently immoral, but at the very least would raise a good number of very uncomfortable issues regarding personal identity, human rights, and eugenics, and could easily devolve into something very immoral.

I, for one, feel more or less the same way about suicide raising uncomfortable issues regarding responsibility to and for other people, although I tend to agree with DemPGH that moralizing the issue overmuch really is unhelpful.

I'd consider, though, that any responsibility one owes to their fellow is not absolute, but rather conditional to their choice to continue living. Sure, as long as you are alive, you should always remember your responsibilities toward society, take into account the effects your decisions may have on other people and try your best to respect anyone's feelings and interests. However, when it comes to the most fundamental decision of all, life or death, nobody should have a say except the individual in question. It is only fair to let absolute selfishness express itself at least in this realm.

[Gustaf]

I'll just note that the position that there cannot be morality without God has a long tradition and is a legitimate viewpoint. You can disagree with it but it isn't absurd and the people who are saying so in this thread don't seem to fully grasp the concept.

Also, teenage sex? So, if you're 19 and married it'd be immoral to have sex? How can anyone think that?

  As one who does it myself at times, I can truly say there are few things more irritating than someone who uses a phrase as of its meaning depended upon the literal meaning of its component words rather than its actual meaning.

Eh, so what does it mean then? When do you stop being a teenager? At 16? Surely, it doesn't refer to sex before you reach age of consent, because that's a different issue which could be worded differently.

It also makes little sense to interpret it as having sex before you reach the age when you can legally marry, since pre-marital sex is already included in the poll.

[afleitch]

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? On what basis can Tony call me morally depraved? What basis does Peter have for asserting that slavery, stoning or sexism is wrong?

If we infer that human morality (which is a very difficult thing to determine) is somehow universal, first of all you are making an objective statement by projecting our understanding of what is morally right and wrong at a very base level as somehow being ‘universal.’ Our own morality is determined by our evolutionary need and cannot extend beyond that domain. We are covering the same ground as this has been discussed on here before (but I am aware that either no one reads nor cares to respond to most of what I talk about on here anyway so I’m not fussed in repeating myself ) So therefore we can objectively state that ‘murder of humans by humans = bad’ (with the usual caveats of course) But we cannot say to an animal that reproduces then kills it’s mate or has it’s young burst from it’s abdomen that because their evolutionary niche requires acts of intra-species ‘murder’ that what they do is morally ‘wrong.’ This is where theists start getting messy fingers too. Gods tend to be the ‘givers’ of human morality and seem to act as we do (or indeed are more capricious and without self restraint at times). What creator god can determine a moral code that is entirely objective given that the ‘morality’ on this planet appears to be relative based on evolutionary drive? What about other worlds? Why should we even assume that concepts of love, justice etc preached by god apply to other beings. Would this god send someone to talk about ‘love’ if love was not a tangible concept in that world? If it wasn’t, what would he talk about? What if for their existence, as some evolutionary function for example; hate was a better thing to embrace than love; would he preach hate because it benefits them more than love? What actions and morals are therefore ‘right’ in the universe as a whole? If everything is relative and god is the ultimate source of that, then how on earth can you infer his will?

[politicallefty]

Maybe it's not inherently immoral, but at the very least would raise a good number of very uncomfortable issues regarding personal identity, human rights, and eugenics, and could easily devolve into something very immoral.

I would agree that there should be strict regulations when it comes to the issue of human cloning. See my post on page 3. (I'm not singling you out at all, especially since you didn't seem to equate what you consider immoral to what should also be illegal.) However, it seems like most of the issues you raise go far beyond just reproductive human cloning.

I checked 1) polygamy because it subjugates women

To be fair, that's only polygamy (more specifically, polygyny, as polygamy simply means having more than one spouse) as practiced by some religions, such as Islam and the FLDS. Would your opinion be different if it were polyandry (more than one husband)? What about, as current marriage laws in the Western world require, having all parties involved provide their consent? For that matter, what if a man or woman wanted to have both a husband and a wife?

For the record, I agree that polygamy that subjugates women is unacceptable and immoral. However, I don't believe that makes polygamy in and of itself immoral.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If that is true, then why have different societies throughout history have had different moralities, different set of ethics?

[afleitch]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If that is true, then why have different societies throughout history have had different moralities, different set of ethics?

That's why I said human morality was a difficult thing to determine and therefore we cannot suggest that human morality is therefore 'universal' amongst ourselves, let alone being projected onto the wider universe

[DemPGH]

I checked 1) polygamy because it subjugates women

To be fair, that's only polygamy (more specifically, polygyny, as polygamy simply means having more than one spouse) as practiced by some religions, such as Islam and the FLDS. Would your opinion be different if it were polyandry (more than one husband)? What about, as current marriage laws in the Western world require, having all parties involved provide their consent? For that matter, what if a man or woman wanted to have both a husband and a wife?

For the record, I agree that polygamy that subjugates women is unacceptable and immoral. However, I don't believe that makes polygamy in and of itself immoral.

To be honest, whether or not it should be legal is probably a separate debate from its morality.

Economics is always a part of marriage, though; I can't see that polygamy or polyandry would do any good since I see it as though there would be innate inequality where someone has a decided economic advantage, and I think that's not healthy. I see it as regressive.

On general morality, if people want to have multiple intimate partners at the same, that's their business, and that should suffice, although I'd hope all involved would be aware of it. It certainly isn't for me, but if that's what people want to do that is their business.

[Peter the Lefty]

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.

It's hilarious how you always whine about how we supposedly portray socons unfairly, yet you manage to come up with posts that candidly summarize basically everything that's wrong with the religious right. You perfectly explained us why your political/religious views are a mark of moral depravity.

But as others have said, if you base everything you think is moral and immoral on what a book tells you and don't care why those laws are there and proclaim that you'd reject all morality if you didn't believe in a God, you're either seriously f**ked up in the head or you need to reevaluate yourself on, well, everything.  I don't know what else to tell you.

The basis of common sense.  Though frankly, it would seem you don't have it if you believe faith to be the only basis for your morality. 

Might as well address these all at once.

Let's see here, four insults and not a single attempt to address my view. This started well.

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?

Now please tell me one rational (yes) argument for why homosexual sex is wrong.  "The Bible says so," does not count, as "the Bible says so" also justifies slavery, the stoning of adulterers, and sexism.

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? On what basis can Tony call me morally depraved? What basis does Peter have for asserting that slavery, stoning or sexism is wrong?

The basis is that slavery and stoning involve the infliction of harm upon others.  As does sexism, which is also a form if bigotry, thereby making it immoral on another count.  Since you'll probably start to claim that there is no basis on which to say that bigotry is wrong, here it is: bigotry is the belief that one thing which is scientifically equal to another is in fact inferior.  As for other forms of morality, there's one very basic word you need to learn: HARM.  Homosexuality does not, if consensual, inflict harm.  Murder, slavery, stoning, and bigotry (such as yours) do. 

Honestly, morality without religion isn't hard to figure out.  If the Bible is your only source of morality, then you by definition must accept the stoning of adulterers as moral.  If you have enough common sense to realize that that in and of itself is immoral, you must also have enough of it to challenge Biblical preconceptions on homosexuality. 

[Repub242]

Ones I marked as immoral
Abortion
Death penalty
Doctor-assisted suicide
Divorce
Porn
Polygamy
Sex before marriage
Birth control
Homosexuality
Teenage sex
Unwed birth
Stem cell research
Suicide
Cloning