Comments | jf0806: MORALS in Nature?

jf0806

MORALS in Nature?

Dec 13, 2006 01:45

Morals, some say, should be left up to the individual choice of the person. My morals may be slightly different than your morals, and that’s OK. Is there a natural Moral Law? What would happen if we all had different morals ( Read more... )

Comments 14

omandolino December 13 2006, 03:47:04 UTC

I...will bite my tongue and just ask if you ever order fries with your BLT sandwich?

jf0806 December 13 2006, 04:10:18 UTC

I'm afraid I don't understand.

pablopy December 13 2006, 08:46:35 UTC

Well, natural law has certainly been part of a lot of philosphies. I mean, Lcoke,Hobbes, Rousseau they all believe in some certain law that is regulating for all of us. Having a law in nature is interesting, and to certain extent biblical. I mean, God created nature right. Being creative means pouring yourself into something else, you are giving something of you into something new. Hence, humans are made in the image of God. The Bible also supports that for example Sabbath is ingrained in nature. I.e. There must be a sabbath year for nature (Lev. 25). And the examples could go on ( ... )

exiled_avatar December 14 2006, 04:02:41 UTC

Raf, you beat me to Locke and Hobbes etc.

What then would you say about people who talk about rights and freedoms not moral right as being the driving force behind this moral evolution? [counter-point] Surely if I am pregnant [which I'm not] surely I have ownership over my body and can do what I choose becuase I have ownership, in much the same way that I can put a brick through my computer moniter because it's mine.

jf0806 December 14 2006, 04:38:02 UTC

I'm not denying people their rights and freedoms, but I do believe that morals have been laid down that ought to be followed. I will readily admit that I do not follow all the morals I preach. That's another one of the things that I preach.

A baby - or fetus - is not, in my opinion, a part of a woman's body. The DNA is different, and it is simply there because for the first 9 months of its life it cannot live on its own. The fact that it becomes its own entity is proof enough to me that it is not a part of the woman. Any other organ - her head, arm, toe, heart, liver, stomach - would be incapable of surviving on its own, even if we gave it 900 millenia rather than 9 months to grow.

pablopy December 14 2006, 07:19:44 UTC

Hey, good one. Exactly my point however. As Christian, socialized through my Christianity and the Bible [not a negative thing] would say that is completely wrong. Besides having, in my opinion a completely wrong take on property [namely a personal version of capitalism], religiously there are many factors playing into this decision that are not so much conditioned by natural rights, but I would say, other way around, natural mores would naturally have their foundation in the bible ( ... )

anonymous December 13 2006, 17:32:04 UTC

And if everyone had to live in abstinence till they got married, well, people would die out eventually because, no not everyone in this world does become happily married, and have a perfect family.
And then these unmarried people would have no chance of raise kids themselves because there would be no kids to adopt, because let face it, I don't think you will be putting your first or even your second kid up for adoption, will you?

jf0806 December 14 2006, 04:42:06 UTC

No not everyone gets happily married, but you're leaving the 'not everyone' in the statement. There are still those that would, and would have succesful happy marriages, which would lead to children.

To be honest, I don't really see your point. Because the fact that only, say, 60% of the population would get married and reproduce does not spiral down towards extinction. 60% of the population are MORE than capable of producing 3 children each, thus leveling off the population to the exact same amount it was before.

They would also have a chance to raise kids because there are still orphans in this world, orphans that are left behind by parents who give them up because they couldn't control their sexual impulses and weren't willing to accept the responsiblity that that comes with.

No, you're right though. We should have abortions for every unwanted child, because then all those unmarried people REALLY wouldn't have a chance to adopt.

pablopy December 14 2006, 07:34:12 UTC

Agreed, whowever anonymous is [it woulndt hurt to identify yourself], you seem to be talking about a exponential decline of growth because some people dont get married. What this implies is that we all should have sex before marriage and have as many kids as possible. I think this statement does not need further refuting, just read it a couple of times ( ... )

malcar December 14 2006, 05:40:39 UTC

It seems to me that everything you wrote there is an argument for moderation, but not morals. Are you saying that fast food is morally wrong? Is smoking? What about not eating in the most healthy way possible, because every time you make an unhealthy choice it shortens your life span.

So if you are saying that anything that shortens your life span is morally wrong, It is wrong to not get enough sleep, wrong not to wear a seat belt, wrong to ever take any risk of any kind. That just seems a bit extreme to me.

jf0806 December 19 2006, 06:34:54 UTC

Moderation is a good word, but sometimes moderation irks me.

Logically, if we're treating our bodies as God's temple, then yes fast food might not be the best thing. Same thing with getting enough sleep.

Wearing a seatbelt is also interesting. I would, in some regards, consider not wearing a seatbelt (or speeding, or breaking any traffic law) a sin. Because we're not obeying the governing authorities, that's why. And I know you're going to say 'what if the governing authorities told you to do something that was morally wrong?' and to that I say...God's rules come first, then the government's. If they coincide, even better. If they conflict, go with God's.

methuselah_d January 9 2007, 05:46:14 UTC

i believe an argument for moderation is in order, and is presented as a side note in what paul wrote. but i think the comment speaks about the issue of if everyone indulged absolutely in these things, or to a dangerous degree. maybe we shouldn't do anything to shorten our life span and should seriously consider our health. however if everyone ate fast food in moderation we all wouldn't die. maybe a little bit sooner, but the world wouldn't end. if we all ate fast food once a day, and became alcoholics, and chain smoked, i believe we would die out. i don't know that i agree with the argument, that if it would wipe us out it's wrong, but it certainly could use further consideration. i believe there is merit in taking the view that if it is good for preserving ourselves and the future generations then it is a good thing to do. maybe not always morally right. i would say there is a natural law set down by God, and that is the absolute right or wrong. i'm not going to argue that here, because i can't seem to organize my thoughts ( ... )

schrebb December 16 2006, 23:02:52 UTC

This post made me sick.
Im still trying to make sense of what you wrote, because it seems so unreal, how someone can even think and come up with thoughts like this.

jf0806 December 19 2006, 06:32:37 UTC

That's interesting. I don't think it's that unreal. In fact, I've met many people that are far more conservative than me in some of these things.