February 22, 2008
-
Puppy Love Part 2
I mentioned in my last post that a man has been charged with having sex with a 4-year-old female rottweiler.
When I posted about it in my photoblog, I received this comment from Squeakysoul:
“These kinds of cases (incest, bestiality, etc) do seem to be those historically “shocking” cases seem to highlight two separate schools of thought on what is immorality:
1) immorality is only that which “hurts” others other than the actor and is therefore a relative concept based on the standard of whether someone else is hurt and 2) there are things that are intrinsically immoral regardless if a third party was “hurt” or not and is based on a fixed standard.”
Does someone or something else have to be hurt in order for something to be considered immoral?
Comments (109)
The person themselves can be hurt for it be considered immoral. However, if no one is hurt, I would say it’s not immoral.
No, because some people are so callous/disconnected, they never allow themselves to feel hurt. Or admit to being hurt. And how do you know that a something feels hurt?
Excellent question.
Though I couldn’t necessarily develop a list of things that are… I would have to say that some things are inherently “wrong.”
I don’t believe so. Stealing is immoral even though it might not hurt anyone… if anything, it hurts moral.
apparently not since so many people are morally offended if two consenting adults participate in acts that others find “immoral”….
when really its none of their business what Susie and and John OR John and Mike do behind closed doors
No, and I’m too tired right now to even contemplate how we define immorality.
that rotty is hawt.
woof
:-/
What is the definition of morality? Dictionary.com states immoral as being defined as “not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or
established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.” As has been demonstrated repeatedly and heatedly on this site for the past few weeks, if not longer, there seem to be fewer and fewer that are “usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.” Things that used to be generally accepted by a majority of people are not longer such. So, morality itself changes and it will continue to change as long as the society has not unchanging moral standard. I’ll get negative comments for this, but the Bible does establish some standards. There we go. Let the debate begin.
@danlang -
agreed!
The difference between right and wrong is where you stand~
Yes. I do.
I think that’s generally the case. Everyone has their own view of what is considered morally wrong. I consider something morally wrong when I get hurt too.
No… I think you can commit immoral acts and not hurt someone… although I guess you would be hurting yourself…
My sister who was an atheist had a hard time teaching her kids morals without throwing the bible in the mix like she had been taught,so finally she came down to this “If it hurts you or someone /thing else it is wrong.” It worked as a good guide for them.
Well let’s say the dog liked it. Let’s say the guy and the dog were both perfectly pleased with their union, maybe the idea of morality comes from someone’s perceived debt to the rest of the world.
Did this man love the world, and 100 pound rottweilers too? Was he a lover all around, or did he tap rottweiler ass because he was incredibly selfish and courtship and seduction were in fact too much for him to attempt?
You should post a photo of the man. I want to see if I can detect an alien gestating under his skin, ready to burst out and slither away into the night, or a truly inventive lover.
It’s in the eyes.
@happydeviant - I know, isn’t she?
Sexy beast! The babygirl! She’s a good girl I’m sure… Awwwww C’mere!
@BenjimonYetAgain - omg. i was beginning to worry that all of dan’s readers lack a sense of humor. typically i get hate replies when i post here.
I think we need to be more specific about what ‘hurt’ means. I think that if the action takes advantage of someone else, gives somebody an unfair advantage/disadvantage, or actually hurts another person emotionally/physically etc. then it’s immoral.
No. And just because an action doesn’t have immediate negative consequences doesn’t mean there won’t be harm down the road.
Spiritually, immorality always hurts someone (or Someone), whether the person believes it does or not.
What’s wrong with hurting someone? When you dump someone that person is hurt, but is that immoral?
When you win Homecoming Queen and all the others are upset for losing, is that immoral? It’s not your fault for being prettier.
My point is that morality and immorality comes down to justifying your thoughts and actions. But then the issues are the guidelines of justification.
First of all that’s just gross…eww!! Who does that? There are a lot of sick and twisted ppl in this world!!
I don’t know, but it’s probably a good indicator. However, I don’t see how that can’t be a fixed standard in itself, to say that anything which is hurtful is immoral though.
pre-maritial sex is immoral, and i’m fairly sure that nobody is hurt there.
No.
//Does someone or something else have to be hurt in order for something to be considered immoral?//
Not necessarily. For instance, cheating on a test doesn’t involve physical harm. Conversely, a doctor performing an appendectomy may be seen, by the same logic, as performing an immoral act, since he/she needs to make an incision, harming the epidermis in the process and thus bringing about physical harm to the person even if it is outweighed by the medical benefits that may result from the appendectomy.
Not necessarily. You can do something that no one would find out about, and it’d still be considered immoral. Like , oh, having sex with a dog. If it’ll land me behind bars or humiliate me if everyone I know found out, chances are it’s immoral.
No
all in all thats just gross. I mean with the dog thing. yuck.
@QuantumStorm - Good points Quantum
Something can be immoral even if no one gets hurt. Something doesn’t have to be immoral just because someone gets hurt.
Whether or not something gets hurt is just a component in determining whether something is immoral or unethical.
The only exception is if one’s definition of moral/immoral is based only on the hurt factor. Which isn’t all that bad, but it is limited.
@Abigailigator - would you be offended if this guy was your partner/potential or son and you found out about his behavior or would you say, what he does behind closed garage doors with a dog none of my buisness?
@happydeviant - hahahaha!
I don’t believe that ‘hurt’ has to be involved to make it immoral.
and eww, gross!
No.
No…
In that case, people need to stop saying that homosexuality is immoral.
That which is “hurtful” can be only to the person doing the action, it doesn’t have to hurt someone ELSE, it can also be harmful to the soul and mind of the one that is involved. All things labels “immoral” were done so for a reason, there are consequences to even the things that seem benign, often times the manifestation of the harm doesn’t show until later in life…..
Hurt. It depends on how you define it. There is the obvious: physical hurt. But there is also a financial “hurt” if someone takes money or something of value. There is emotional hurt. There are all kinds of hurts.
Actually…now that I think of it, if someone steals something from someone and that person never notices, they are not really hurt, but it is still immoral to steal.
I’ll go with NO, there does not have to be hurt to have immorality.
no
Morality can hardly be divided into these two simple categories. Toleration of other people’s ethics, does not necessarily mean agreement. And most people here can think of an act that does not overtly hurt someone that they would consider wrong. And I am of the opinion that their are actions that can hurt people that can be classified as moral and vice versa. I suppose one could be a objective rule-deontologist and hold “Never harm others” as your most important duty, and not have any duties that would classify any action that is not harming others as immoral but that would be a pretty unique ethical stance. Or one could simply be an absolutist rule-deontologist and hold the same secondary view.
Utilitarians would probably view the limitation of morality into these two camps as stupid.
Subjective ethical relativism has no set system so it can’t be readily compared.
Conventional ethical relativists might view this as appropriate, if that what the culture tends to justify. And the culture presently emphasis tolerance (though, like I said earlier, I believe tolerance and agreement to be two different things).
Meh, I don’t want to go any further.
Limiting ethics to these two simple choices is inappropriate in my opinion.
In principle, yes.
@Tavia_n_Jones - That which is “hurtful” can be only to the person doing the action, it doesn’t have to hurt someone ELSE, it can also be harmful to the soul and mind of the one that is involved.
What if that pain is willingfully borne? For instance, a woman willingly undergoing the pains of child birth
All things labels “immoral” were done so for a reason, there are consequences to even the things that seem benign, often times the manifestation of the harm doesn’t show until later in life…..
The delayed manifestation you mention here would still fall under the rubric of “hurting someone else.” In his phrasing of the proposition, no timeframe was specified.
Also, historical and cultural superstitions isn’t a very good standard for morality. In many puritanical societies, witch-burning (or drowning for that mater) is kosher.
Anything that goes against the common good of humanity and has no long term benefit beyond the act is immoral.
Having intercourse with another species rather than your own is against nature. It is an insult to the process of creating life. If everyone started humping other animals rather than people humanity would cease to exist.
In addition to that it is also an immoral act because it degrades the person themselves. Engaging in such an act only takes the participant a step further down a path of perversion and evil.
@QuantumStorm - Not necessarily. For instance, cheating on a test doesn’t involve physical harm.
Dan’s question phrasing made no limitations or differentiation between physical and non-physical harm. Most people would agree that emotional abuse of children (though, not involving physical belt or wrench) is immoral. Or lying for that matter.
Likewise, cheating on the exam is harmfun in may other ways than the physical. For one it is the breaking of the implicit contract between test adminstrator and test taker. Also, it is a violation between the understanding between the cheater and other test takers. Depending on the sort of test, long-term detriments could be mentioned. (For instance, if a civil engineer cheated his way through the state’s Professional Engineer exam, I’d worry about the soundness of the bridges he would be designing.)
Conversely, a doctor performing an appendectomy may be seen, by the same logic, as performing an immoral act, since he/she needs to make an incision, harming the epidermis in the process and thus bringing about physical harm to the person even if it is outweighed by the medical benefits that may result from the appendectomy.
Come on. Don’t be a smart aleck.
It’s a big big world. Nearly all actions we take would lead to more than one distinguishable concenquence. Also, it is likely that the results of that single action wouldn’t all lie below the nentural line (harmful) or above the neutral line (good). Thus, the morality of most actions would have to be deemed through its weighing: Benifits versus disadvantages.
Woudl a particular action do more good than harm? If yes, it’s moral. If not, then it’s immoral.
Morals are for losers, tbh.
@huginn - “Woudl a particular action do more good than harm? If yes, it’s moral. If not, then it’s immoral.”
Thus says the the utilitarian. But the problem with the question was that it was not stated in that way. It was basically, “does morality depend on one being hurt or not.” Of course if you define hurt as wide and as encompassing as you did in previous posts, then of course it becomes logical to say yes, someone has to be hurt for an action to be immoral. The problem is that is impractical and hardly applicable to guiding one’s actions on a day to day level (which somewhat the point of ethics), since one will not be able to view what their actions did or did not do 5, 10 years in the future, as well as being able to identify their action as the main factor in the harm inflicted. Thus, I can a more limited view of “hurt” be used, which then opens the floodgates for questionable actions that don’t necessarily fall under the “hurt others” category anymore.
Morality is relative, as is “hurt”. And immorality.
-edit previous post-
Thus, I can a more limited view of “hurt” be used= Thus, I’m in favor of a more limited view of “hurt” being applied.
Sorry me grammer not so good.
Yes.
Therefore, this is immoral.
It’s all endless circle, but I think that for a man to have a intimate relationship with a dog he must be hurt(whether it’s something from his past, or his present.) I believe that there is always, always a reason why people do such destructive things that so strongly go against society; and it usually goes back to hurt.
Oy…this is like one of those questions “if a tree falls in the forest while nobody is around, does it make a sound?” or in this case “if an immoral act is committed but there is nobody to be hurt, is that act still wrong?”
I firmly believe that even if nobody is “hurt”, it is still immoral. The repercussions are still there even if nobody is truly hurt by the action.
@whataboutbahb - Thus says the the utilitarian.
John Stuart Mill. Hoot, hoot!
The problem is that is impractical and hardly applicable to guiding one’s actions on a day to day level (which somewhat the point of ethics), since one will not be able to view what their actions did or did not do 5, 10 years in the future, as well as being able to identify their action as the main factor in the harm inflicted.
Agreed. The question of an action’s morality, then, would lie on the actor’s own possible perceptions of the good and harm that could come out of his action. Given the information on hand, is the best possible choice being made?
We do not hold everyone to the same standard of morality. We don’t expect some of the mentally ill to percieve an action with the same clarity or with the same objective correctness of a normal person. Likewise with a juvenile.
@SilentWolf86 - While I agree with your premise, you might want to refrain from using the word “evil.” There are plenty of people who comment here regularly who would not agree with the fact that evil even exists. They would say you are passing judgment on people in order to even use the term. They would assume you are a Christian and believe in a literal Adam and Eve. You might want to refrain.
And now morality is subjected to what the masses think.
America is the new Rome.
The essence of crime lies in harm.
in the american culture, that is gross. the dog’s cute.
Lots of things are immoral where nobody actually “gets hurt”.
@happydeviant - Who sends you hate replies???? Let me at ‘em!
Just stopping by to say ‘Hi’…Missed ya!
Hope you’re doing well!
Hugs!
Something can be immoral without hurting somone
looks at incest, beasitality, student/teacher or boss/employee relationships.
Daniel (doubledb)
Good thing it wasn’t a male dog or the shit would have really hit the fan.
Not necessarily.
Things that are societally unethical:
1. violating property rights.
2. initiating the use of force.
That’s it.
Though, to be fair, there is much more unethical behavior on a personal level, such as sleeping around, laziness, self-hatred, and religion, but if you want to practice all of the above, I don’t care- just stay away from me, and do what you like.
No one and nothing has to be hurt or damaged for something to be immoral. Sure animal sex is immoral but morals are all in the eye of the beholder.
@happydeviant - Awww, I don’t think I have hated on you. I find almsot everything you say quite hilarious.
@Momentkeeper - wheeeeeeeeeee! i have smiles for miles now.
Morality is in the eye of the beholder, which this site proves on a daily basis. Different people are going to believe different things. There is no Universal Law that every single person in the world is going to believe in as a benchmark for was IS or IS NOT moral.
That being said…I don’t care how many different times this comes up, I am going to maintain that molesting an animal is absolutely foul. You were born with hands for a reason. Sex toys exist for a reason. Leave the puppy poo shoot alone and get a toy.
No!
Bah! Morals get in the way of havin’ a good time.
I don’t believe in “morals”
When it comes to bestiality I can’t really say it is right or wrong but it is certainly strange and disgusting from my perspective.
@werd_homies - When it comes to bestiality I can’t really say it is right or wrong but it is certainly strange and disgusting from my perspective.
Exactly. Too many people here take the “eewww gross” or the “consent” route and magically on the imorality conclusion without really having throught through the issue.
No. An act is immoral if it offends society. It is therefore rather transient, depending on the social context it occurs within and the changing mores of that society. Hence pre-marital sex and homosexuality at one time were considered immoral but are not today except within pretty well defined minority groups.
ahhh!
I don’t think hurting someone would be immoral in all cases. i agree with tylzee.
@ihaveanalibi - What is your definition of morality?
If there’s anything in this world that’s subjective, it’s morality.
I would write more but I have class.
-David
no.
@huginn - conforming with social mores I suppose is the short answer. As most societies value honesty and integrity I guiess I’m pretty happy with that.
@la_faerie_joyeuse -
“Things that are societally unethical:
1. violating property rights.
2. initiating the use of force.
That’s it.”
What about fraud? Or breaching a contract?
short answer: no.
and it did hurt the owner of the dog, emotionally. the guy trespassed and violated someone’s property.
@ihaveanalibi - “conforming with social mores I suppose is the short answer. As most
societies value honesty and integrity I guiess I’m pretty happy with
that.”
The problem with conventionalism is that it has no outside reference of morality. Thus human sacrifice (murder) is completely moral within the current culture that allows and promotes it. Same with slavery. And the list goes on.
Another problem comes in condemning actions of the past or other cultures. If morality depends on the culture, who are we to determine which morality is preferable, or which culture is right and which is wrong? That’s like me saying Spanish is wrong, since it’s not English. Well in the United States we speak English and in Spain they speak Spanish, who am I to say they’re speaking the wrong language?
@whataboutbahb -
You’re mostly right and I agree – morality is dependent on the culture. Most Americans would say that there is nothing immoral about the death penalty. Most Europeans would disagree. Neither is wrong because they are judging it by their own social standards. Your Spanish language analogy fails simply because Spanish isn’t offensive to any society.
Yes. If no one gets hurt, it’s not immoral. Pretty much all there is to it.
@and_everything_fades_to_black - Pre-marital sex can lead to unwanted pregnancies, which seriously hurt the woman’s vagina. So yes, someone does get hurt.
@cuteluvr21 - I agree.
Necrophilia is only immoral if they don’t marry the cadaver before fornicating with it.
No, they do not. A thing can be intrinsically immoral, and although an immoral act does not seem to be hurting anyone, it can be hurting someone without knowledge of the actor, or it can be hurting the actor’s own soul.
And to I forget which commenter: I was talking about the two kinds of opinions that seem to be brought out by stories like this. I wasn’t trying to boil all of ethics into those two categories. But thanks for thinking I’m shallow enough to do so. Very complimentary.
That’s horrible. What kind of sick fuck does that to an innocent animal? Animals are basically like children. Hurting an animal is like hurting a child. I mean, there both innocent and incapable of doing something truly wrong. Who’d want to hurt the most innocent among us? That’s what I want to know…or rather, I don’t.
Oh! Come On!!!! With that philosophy, someone would be able to masturbate in public and have it be considered ok because it is not hurting anyone. You can go down the many branches of that road and it is just wrong. I can think of several things that doesn’t hurt anyone, but would be highly immoral.
No I don’t think so.
This case in particular nauseates me because I own a Rottweiler mix. If anyone did that to either her or my other dog (a male, but I have read of incidents) they would want to leave the country ASAP because, if foud, thet would be subjected to some seriously immoral acts….
Depends on your definition of what exactly morality is defined as. Cursing is considered “immoral” but most people I talk to do it. Interjections don’t hurt anyone.
@and_everything_fades_to_black -
“pre-maritial sex is immoral, and i’m fairly sure that nobody is hurt there.”
To reply to this, and many other comments, I think that it is sometimes hard to judge how far an acts influence can go. Perhaps those two people having premarital sex aren’t getting hurt during the act, but maybe one of them later feels that it was a mistake. Maybe when they break up and marry other people, those people who they have married are hurt that they had premarital sex with another.
As a christian, it was always hard for me to understand why sexual exploration out of marriage was a sin. I thought that if masturbation isn’t hurting anybody else, then it should be fine. Now that I’m married, I see things differently, and I understand. Things that she or I may have done 10 years ago could have not hurt anybody for a long time afterward.
As far as the bestiality goes, I’d say that a woman walking in on a guy raping her dog could be considered hurtful to her. So I think that this case qualifies both of those definitions.
depends on what’s going on?
@ihaveanalibi -
So there is nothing innately wrong about human sacrifice or slavery? There have been plenty of cultures who would label either or both of these acts as socially acceptable. Thus, while cultures might have differentiating views on either of these actions, there is no ultimate answer on if these actions can be viewed as wrong or not? My Spanish analogy was to show what happens when you treat ethics simply like a language, something that is simply a part of the culture/society- it really doesn’t make sense. There is no “right” or “wrong” language. In ethics, I believe there is right and wrong that can be determined outside of the culture, thus you can condemn actions of a culture (like I believe the attempted genocide of the Native Americans to have been wrong, I consider slavery to be wrong, I consider human sacrifice to be wrong. It doesn’t matter if it was socially acceptable within their society, I still view it as wrong). You see what I’m saying?
Please note that I’m not trying to exclude the influence that society/cultural does have on moral norms, they have a great influence. But I think their are certain innate rights people have (life and liberty being the easiest to identify) that make an outside-the-culture reference of morality possible. On smaller issues, I agree the society can determine what is right and wrong. But I think that doesn’t (and shouldn’t) apply to everything.
@hllrider - That depends on who’s doing the masturbating. If it’s a fat hairy guy, then yes, that would hurt my eyes. Badly.
@TheNumberScott -
“As a christian, it was always hard for me to understand why sexual
exploration out of marriage was a sin. I thought that if masturbation
isn’t hurting anybody else, then it should be fine. Now that I’m
married, I see things differently, and I understand.”
How on earth is masturbation wrong? Just imagine how much violence and rape this simple act is preventing. Not to mention allowing men who aren’t having sex on a regular basis to be able to function normally within society w/o being completely horny all the time (just imagine the loss in productivity).
So please tell me how marriage helped you understand why masturbation was wrong.
If other people think the same thing (that masturbation is wrong), I want Dan to make this a separate topic because I am very curious on how or why people could view it as morally wrong (shit, even Dr. Dobson is for it).
YES.
END OF STORY.
@whataboutbahb -
I don’t want to hijack Dan’s site, but your posts and questions are thoughtful and interesting. We don’t disagree in the main, it’s just semantics. My point is that morality has nothing to do with right or wrong per se. Of course I see slavery and human sacrifice as wrong. I also see animal sacrifice as wrong – but it is not immoral in the cultures where it is practiced.
I visited your site and note that your interests are philosophy and poker. The philosophy is apparent here – and will stand you in very good stead with your other interest!
“immoral = deliberately violating accepted principles of right and wrong”
In this case, he was definitely immoral; he was convicted of cruelty to the animal.
@ihaveanalibi -
“Of course I see slavery and human sacrifice as wrong. I also see
animal sacrifice as wrong – but it is not immoral in the cultures where
it is practiced. “
Okay, I’m not sure if I fully understand what you are trying to say? Are you trying to say all three (slavery, human sacrifice, and animal sacrifice) are immoral in your opinion based on our culture, but not in other cultures where it is practiced? Or are you just referring to animal sacrifice with the last part after the hyphen? If you think all three are not immoral in cultures where it is acceptable, then our disagreement is not based on semantics, but that fact I think an outside reference of morality exists (I believe in some sort of natural law) and you do not (and the following paragraph has nothing to do with this discussion, so you can skip it) . If you think slavery and human sacrifice can be judged as wrong in our cultures and other cultures, but smaller things such as animal sacrifice depends on culture, then read the following paragraph.
“My point is that morality has nothing to do with right or wrong per se.”
While I see what you are trying to say (i think)- that we basically just have different definitions of morality, I would like to point out I can’t see a complete definition of morality that doesn’t include right or wrong. Morality, in essence, is defining right and wrong, so I can’t see how you can separate the two. If you could provide a definition from a respected source, I might reconsider or at least understand your perspective better, but right now basically it seems to me like you you want to have your cake and eat it too. That being you want morality to have some sort of outside reference (thus allowing you to condemn slavery and human sacrifice in current and past cultures), but you also want the smaller issues of morality to be determined by culture (such as animal sacrifice).
And don’t worry, I don’t think Dan cares if this thread gets hijacked. I’ve done it enough.
Btw, what do you mean by “The philosophy is apparent here – and will stand you in very good stead with your other interest!”? Are you trying to say that philosophy will benefit my poker playing? While it is an interesting concept, I really have not noticed a correlation between the two.
Everything is different for everyone. But really, how did people find out..?
Gee, I love these comments. It really shows who you are doesn’t it. Let’s start with “We came from Monkeys”. Next we will say we do as animals do so that makes things like homosexuallity, casual sex, and polygamy are ok. If that is the case as being ok, then if a teacher sleeps with a student, even if the student is 12 then that shouldn’t be wrong should it? Heck, it won’t be too long before consent does not matter so we can throw in rape and all forms of abuse because animals do it to maintain social order by having the dominate animal in charge maintaining a thriving social order.
Come on people. At what point do you stop this stupid logic? Hey Dan, how about this question: At what point do we stop thinking “As long as it does not directly happen to me, then it is ok for everyone else?” The logic in this social order only leads to the concept of might is right. Eventually the freedoms that have been enjoyed with abuse over the years will come back to haunt? Doesn’t anyone realize that the free and rampant nature of sex in this manor is the cause for the spread of disease and social disorder? Come on, are you all so used to living with AIDS that you forgot how it got so bad in the industrialized world and how it is still killing millions where social order is determined by might.
@PapaMcEuin -
“If that is the case as being ok, then if a teacher sleeps with a
student, even if the student is 12 then that shouldn’t be wrong should
it?”
Children aren’t viewed as being able to give consent for a reason. A person can view casual sex as moral and sex between an adult and child as immoral. They are not contradictory views like you would seem to imply.
“Heck, it won’t be too long before consent does not matter so we can
throw in rape and all forms of abuse because animals do it to maintain
social order by having the dominate animal in charge maintaining a
thriving social order.”
What the hell are you talking? How does viewing acts that don’t harm people as moral suddenly result in viewing acts that harm people as moral? Where did that transition happen? And who bases their morals or politics off animal behavior?
“The logic in this social order only leads to the concept of might is
right.”
No it doesn’t. Please learn more about the concept of enlightened self-interest (especially in the political sense as it relates to the state of nature).
umm, how did he get caught? hmm. How strange. Wow, I’m at a loss for anything to add to this. Just wow.
No, some things are imoral regardless. It doesn’t depend on “hurt feelings”. That’s way to arbitrary. ~ L
@whataboutbahb - My point is simple, tipping point. Having sex outside of marriage used to be considered immoral by society as a whole. Divorce was not an option, you were to treat each other with love and respect and work out the problems, not leave them to fester. Today, neither seems to be an issue for society and I don’t excuse the behavior for church goers either. As society slowly but surely chips away at what is socially acceptable, behaviours that were immoral become moral. It is like leaning over a cliff stairing down into the canyon. If you stand close enough and lean far enough, you will eventually fall.
Regarding your other comments, I have a degree and have done some graduate work. I did not say that the transition has happened, but merely stated it is not far from the edge current society. Regarding nature, there are many comments that have been made in response to Theologian’s Cafe’s comments where several have stated actions are ok simply because humans are animals doing as animals do. If that is the case, check my other comments and the reality of what animals do to each other, even their own kind.
Your concept of enlightened self interest, “Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest.” as stated on Wiki, is a farce. Acting in the interest of the group to which you belong is only to provide might and right to that group. As one group grows in strength, another group is subdued. Hitler and his group acted with enlightened self interest. Were their actions moral? Should not enlightenment be something that sets us apart from animals rather than only brings us closer to their base mode of single survival by joining the group and supporting actions that will in the long term lead to our destruction?
Maybe studing things other than what makes us warm and fuzzy and seeing the reality of who we are and what we are would be a better choice. A friend very much into philosophy shared this nice statement, “You can polish a turd, but in the end it is still a turd.” There is only one saving grace for humanity and though it is hard for many to accept, it is not of ourselves or our own work or effort. I am not fooled and I do know humanity’s nature regarding self interest. But it is your quest, your choice to make, and your responsibility to live and die by the outcome.
@PapaMcEuin -
I knew I should not have brought up enlightened self-interest, but let me should provide you an abbreviated version of what I was referring to. The wikipedia definition is lacking, especially because it does not involve the context I was referring to (self-interest as one of the driving forces that pushes man out of state of nature).
“As one group grows in strength, another group is subdued. Hitler and his group acted with enlightened self interest.”
That is completely incorrect. Even going by wikipedia’s short definition of the term. Might is right is not viewed as correct viewing things with an enlightened self-interest, because that means whatever atrocities you visit on others while you are the most powerful will most likely be visited upon you sometime in the future once you cease to be the most powerful. To give an example- Say I am the strongest man in the village (and also a leader). I could steal from any one person I chose to because I am stronger then they are. But I also do not want people to steal from me. So I could steal from other people, but by deeming this an appropriate behavior but I run the risk of being stolen from in the future- either by the emergence of a stronger man, my own muscles growing weak over time, or simply weaker people allying themselves against me.
“Having sex outside of marriage used to be considered immoral by society
as a whole. Divorce was not an option, you were to treat each other
with love and respect and work out the problems, not leave them to
fester. Today, neither seems to be an issue for society and I don’t
excuse the behavior for church goers either. As society slowly but
surely chips away at what is socially acceptable, behaviours that were
immoral become moral. It is like leaning over a cliff stairing down
into the canyon. If you stand close enough and lean far enough, you
will eventually fall.”
You have to be more specific when you simply refer to “society.” Yes, American culture used to be more conservative for the last 200 years or so. Women only began to be viewed as equal (or at least somewhat equal) by the government in the last 80 years or so. Higher rates of divorce are the result of treating women less like property. It’s unfortunate, yes, but it’s the result of giving two people full rights in a relationship in a society where their is an individualistic focus (thus there is no strong influence from their community to make them stay together and work out their problems).
“I am not fooled and I do know humanity’s nature regarding self interest.”
? I view men as inherently selfish and looking out for themselves. Enlightened self-interest is a political concept to explain why men started to develop into societies and eventually gave power to a government body to insure basic needs and rights (protection of self and property from others). It is not a concept (at least not in the political sense) meant to paint man as this loving being who always looks out for others first. Man wants to himself and his property from others and that is why he is willing to cede power to the state. Man also is driven by greed and self-interest as well though. How is would capitalism work if not?
I was merely using enlightened self-interest to show that people on the whole are not accepting of the might is right concept because they are too interested in protecting themselves and their own property. And might is right does not do that.
” I did not say that the transition has happened, but merely stated it is not far from the edge current society.”
Many of the acts you suggested (rape) as being soon to be viewed as moral would never likely be allowed in a liberal, democratic society. The main role of the state is to protect its citizens and their property from threats (inside and outside). Why would this change if victimless crimes eventually became accepted and actually socially approved? There’s a huge jump there and you still haven’t explained it.
You do realize my answer to Dan’s original question was “No” right? But you are making wild leaps in logic to assume that answering yes to that question will result in a society where harm to others soon becomes moral.
@whataboutbahb - I understand what you are saying and the “intent” of enlightened self interest is by nice people to have a nice society. But the problem is that that same rule applied to someone without the same nice intent is no longer so nice, thus Hitler. The fact is that the freedom for all in all concept that would be the liberal democratic way of thinking has problems. Such a society has to deal with the fact that not everyone plays fair and will twist nice intentions. An example is that with the legal fight of homosexual groups seeking marriage rights and winning in some states, came a return of lawsuits from those in the Orthodox Mormon community to retry their right to have polygamous marriages. If one is ok, why not the other? There is no abrupt change in society, things are much more like the frog in the pot of water on the stove. Throw the frog in hot, it will recognize something is wrong and seek to escape. Gently put it in lukewarm water, then slowly turn up the heat and it will never know what killed it. The problem with any form of selfishness and belief that we can be better ourselves is that we simply can’t be that. I am a Christian. I seek God to improve me not as a crutch, but have you ever seen a dirty shirt get itself clean? Any form of self-enlightenment no matter how you wish to phrase it is merely a dirty shirt attempting to clean itself.
Oh, and on divource, how do you consider marriages that end in irreconcilable differences as a case of property? What about her cheating? To consider the property clause, men in the past didn’t have to rely on divource if they were able to argue the woman as property. Texas law used to allow a man to hang his wife if he no longer wished to keep her. Go back a few thousand years and she could be written off like a bad debt or broken chair. As I stated, the marriage issue with divource can be shaded many ways, but it comes down to 2 people being realistic and working together, not simply 2 people getting selfishly fulfilled and then going their own ways when their petty desires are not being met. And to through in my Christian view, if someone doesn’t know who God is truly in their life, they will have a greater chance of marrying the wrong person and have more problems to deal with as a result. If they stray from God, then problems will come because their selfish ambitions will take over. Think about it, if we honestly understand our Creator and our place, we see there is no place for selfishness. We see no reason to fulfill selfish desires and stray outside his design for our lives. When we are satisfied with who he wants us to be, then we do not cause harm to someone else. Not because we are afraid fo what happens to us, but because we know that doing what pleases him, protects all. True enlightenment comes from knowing our place, not establishing our position.
From what I have seen, yes. Just look at our American’s history. 18 years old was not allowed to vote, not until after tons of teenagers were drafted in the war. Also, there is no safety hazard things for factory worker until one of them burn down and killed thousands of employees.
no