Ahhh…and here we come to an inpass. I believe that the only immoral act is the one that actually infringes on someone elses rights…we are coming from different places, and will probably not agree based on our two very different views of the same word.
I could apply the same rhetoric to your statement of now not believing morality yourself Tortoise. Besides, that is not the whole of my answer to you. If this isn’t sufficient for you, there is nothing I can do to help you further understand my response.
What I fail to understand is which definition of “normal” you are working with. If more people had sex with their sisters, would it be ok? It was a fairly common practice earlier in life.
Do you feel that homosexuality is immoral as well? Or in fact any kind of sexual experiance that is not based on reproduction?
Webster’s dictioanary fields my definition well:
SYN — normal implies conformity with the established norm or standard for its kind [normal intelligence]; regular implies conformity with the prescribed rule or accepted pattern for its kind [the regular working day]; typical applies to that which has the representative characteristics of its type or class [a typical Southern town]; natural implies behavior, operation, etc. that conforms with the nature or inherent character of the person, thing, or circumstances [natural fears, a natural outcome]; usual applies to that which conforms to the common or ordinary use or occurrence [the usual price]; average, in this connection, implies conformity with what is regarded as normal or ordinary [the average man]
I don’t condone homosexuality as a natural sex practice. The one I recognize is between a man and a woman through proper marital channels. I don’t consider homosexuals to be lesser people. I know some homosexual people I consider friends and have congenial interactions with them like heterosexual friends I know. I don’t judge them, because that is not my place.
As I said…if more people had sex with their sisters, would you then think it was OK? It would be established as normal, as many people would do it.
Marital channels? Surely you don’t think marriage is normal. People were having sex long before marriage came along, and many continue to have sex outside of marriage. So unless you meant something else my “marital channels”, you have totally lost me.
Now, what exactly is it that makes you feel that abnormal=wrong?
Certainly, why is your understanding of morality necessarily be better than mine?
I’m not under the impression that he implied his was any better than yours. However, you wouldn’t be able to use the same rhetoric against his view of morality, due to the fact that (as far as I have seen) he does not believe in morality at all.
That isn’t the case though is it? So, it’s not considered to be a societal norm.
Certainly I do. Surely you don’t believe marriage is abnormal? People may have been and still do have sex in an unwed fashion, but I don’t consider it normal. I feel it is abnormal=wrong because I believe it to be so regardless of where we are society wise.
How can you be sure? Tomorrow could change into a whole different set of values, and I would still think the same. The fact you believe in what you do has no bearing on my sensibilities and vice versa. You conform to your logic one way, and I to mine. Apparently ours will never mesh. As far as I can see morality has no place in your existence, where it does in mine…plain and simple.
I didn’t say it WAS the case. I asked you a question- If more people had sex with their sisters, would it no longer be immoral?
Ha. Ha ha…hahahahahaha. Fact- There is more sex between UNWED people than there is between married couples. Thus, sex inside of marriage is less common- ie not normal.
“In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. - Galileo”
The same could be said about morality. The opinion of a thousand in matters of morality is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. It is not what the masses think of as normal that makes an action moral or immoral, but whether or not the action infringes on the rights of others.
Even if there is more sex between unwed people, I don’t consider it moral or normal behavior. Most everyone I know personally feels the same way.
That I’m sure I don’t think morality is about what’s normal.
You don’t decide what normal is. Society does.
"Webster’s dictioanary fields my definition well:
SYN — normal implies conformity with the established norm or standard for its kind "
If incest were the established norm, you would either view it as moral, or be a contradiction to your own defintion of moral. Make up your mind.
What I consider normal matters to me. That would be like me saying since there are more Christians in the United States than there are atheists, it is the norm and you need to conform. I would never say that. What you choose to believe is your own affair whether or not the majortiy believes it or not.
I doubt moral normal thinking people would ever view incest as acceptable. Since incest is not considered a standard it does not follow normal thinking.
What I believe to be moral is normal for me.
No, my last statement was what I believe to be moral is normal.
Sounds good to me.
So…it’s moral because it’s moral.
Right.