- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
Originally posted by ivanhoeNo.
"If you were attracted to dead bodies wouldn't having sex with one be respecting your own body's desires?"
No.
What does the notion "respect" mean if it produces disrespect ?
Any particular reason?
What does the notion "respect" mean if it produces disrespect ?
- It depends on who is getting the respect, lots of people act a certain way to get respect from their friends and themselves; but they get a lot of disrespect from others: e.g. chavs/hoodies.
In a sense these people are comforted by the respect they get from their friends.
Originally posted by ivanhoeA dead body is just a slab of meat, the only things I can see wrong with it are the health risks and the feelings of the remaining family.
I regard engaging in sex with dead bodies both respectless towards the dead person ànd towards one own's body. One uses one's body in a way that is was not meant to be used .... same goes for the dead body.
What if a couple mutually agreed that when one died the other could use that dead body as the desired?
2 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanIf two people agree to act disrespectfully, does that make the act respectful ?
A dead body is just a slab of meat, the only things I can see wrong with it are the health risks and the feelings of the remaining family.
What if a couple mutually agreed that when one died the other could use that dead body as the desired?
I do not accept the ideology which tells us that everything is morally acceptable simply because there are one, two or more consenting adults involved. This ideology does not investigate the substance of the act involved, but only looks at the "procedure" ( "consenting adults" ) which leads to the act.
Originally posted by Bad wolfSo, if one commits a murder to gain "respect" than the murder is morally acceptable. Correct ?
[b]No.
Any particular reason?
What does the notion "respect" mean if it produces disrespect ?
- It depends on who is getting the respect, lots of people act a certain way to get respect from their friends and themselves; but they get a lot of disrespect from others: e.g. chavs/hoodies.
In a sense these people are comforted by the respect they get from their friends.[/b]
Originally posted by ivanhoeUpon what do you base the notion of disrespect in this case?
If two people agree to act disrespectfully, does that make the act respectful ?
I do not accept the ideology which tells us that everything is morally acceptable simply because there are one, two or more consenting adults involved. This ideology does not investigate the substance of the act involved, but only looks at the "procedure" ( "consenting adults" ) which leads to the act.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIt is true. That your beliefs cause you to portion a further level of attributes to a dead body gives it only indirect qualities, qualities that exist in your perception and not in the object itself.
This is simply not true. In doing so you practise an unacceptable form of reductionism. You mould reality in such a way that it fits your reasoning.
As to moulding reality, we all do that, you included. You take your belief structure and cast that net over reality, adjusting your view of reality until the net sits comfortably. Don't lecture me on the standards of reasoning, you're just as fallible as I am.
Originally posted by StarrmanWell said. .
It is true. That your beliefs cause you to portion a further level of attributes to a dead body gives it only indirect qualities, qualities that exist in your perception and not in the object itself.
As to moulding reality, we all do that, you included. You take your belief structure and cast that net over reality, adjusting your view of reality unti ...[text shortened]... comfortably. Don't lecture me on the standards of reasoning, you're just as fallible as I am.
A strong belief lends a person to adopt ideas that reinforce the belief and dismiss opinion that is in opposition. A strong belief ultimately leads people to close of their minds to the alternate view.
Originally posted by jammerThis is what could be said to be "a Hollywood version of moral relativism": the individual choosing his or her moral standards. Perhaps a more sophisticated way of approaching this subject is to note that a moral relativist's main point is usually that moral values are culturally determined, and an individual pretty much adopts or internalizes the values of the culture he or she lives in. So, the much emphasized freedom of choice doesn't necessarely play such an important role here. Of course, this viewpoint can be subjected to criticism as well as other ethical theories.
Some (many) atheists belive in Moral Relativism .. it's the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice.
We can all decide what is right for ourselves.
You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's tr ...[text shortened]... his definition from a website.
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/moral-relativism.htm
It is clearly the christian theist for example, rather than the moral relativist, who argues that "It's true for me, if I believe it."
And, to comment the original question, I have very little idea what is meant here by "absolute moral". But an atheist can believe in justice, equality, revolution etc. or why not in Kantian imperative. Could ethical principles based on those things be considered "absolute" as well as the moral rules set by God?
Originally posted by ClimacusThere are also many different ways this can be put forth. It could be simply a descriptive anthropologic claim that, in fact, differing groups have adopted and do adopt differing sets of social norms; or it could be a metaethical thesis that the truth values of moral claims are relative to the beliefs, practices, etc., of these differing groups; or it could just be a claim that the justification related to moral judgments is relative to the differing groups; or...
note that a moral relativist's main point is usually that moral values are culturally determined
So, yeah, I agree with you that it's considerably more complicated than jammer's initial post.
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat do you mean when you say that my body is (and dead bodies are) "meant" to be used in certain ways and "meant" not to be used in other certain ways? Is that just another theo-teleological claim of yours?
I regard engaging in sex with dead bodies both respectless towards the dead person ànd towards one own's body. One uses one's body in a way that is was not meant to be used .... same goes for the dead body.
Originally posted by jammerThat is simply not true. (the requires you to know everything bit).
Aren't too many really strong atheists IMO.
Requires you to know everything.
A strong atheist (like me) does not necessarily have solid proof that God does not exist. We merely believe that he doesn't. I also believe that proof in the real world (outside of mathematics) does not exist.
Are you saying that belief in anything or the belief that something does not exist requires infinite knowledge? Or are you possibly saying that the concept of God is sufficiently vague as to be meaningless?
Do you agnostic about Santa Claus? Elves and fairies? Unicorns? Why does that not require infinite knowledge?
