Original Sin and...

[_Themis]

I can see why you choose sub as part of your name. Smarter people would easily see I have been referring to humans as a group surviving from one generation to another. This cannot happen without humans working together as a group. Perhaps you can try and find examples of this. I can think of a number of individual who have lived apart from the group for many years.

apart from showing that humans can survive without the group...now it should be understood that reading between the lines is necessary with your posts?

Just a little reading comprehension. I have even given more detail when asked, but you are not really here for actual discussion.

I already posted that link to Darwin's thoughts on that subject.

So? His thoughts just support what I said about humans needing the group for survival of the group. Think of it this way. Grizzly Bears survive as loners quite easily. They only get together for mating. Humans could survive long term as a species this way. How easily would a women have and raise a child by themselves?

what i have shown is that SteelHead does not know what he is arguing:http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=706564#p706564
Madeleine has done likewise.

Madeleine and steelhead are actually talking past each other, and agree much more then you understand.

point being you have no coherent reason to explain that "reevaluation". Slavery is either intrinsically bad or it is just conveniently bad...and if it is the latter, then one can not reasonably justify being against slavery, apart from going along with the crowd...a crowd that has no idea why it thinks slavery is bad.

I don't need to explain any reevaluation, only that people can reevaluate their moral codes. This shows morals can and do change. I have also stated most slavers did not reevaluate and fought against slavery being outlawed. I have also stated that they would view it as good for them to have slaves and enslave others while not wanting or thinking it would be good to enslave themselves.

seems like i got it correct...what did i miss?

Again a little reading comprehension goes a long way. For them, especially given the context of the discussion would mean they don't wouldn't view it good for them to be slaves. I doubt anyone else didn't comprehend what I said. I do wonder considering what you left out that you may have understood it, but were being dishonest in order to try and attack others as you constantly do.

[_SteelHead]

Sub,
I have provided examples and references. You have provided none. Who is making an argument by assertion?

[_subgenius]

Again sub, while you mis represent my position, which is in a nutshell "definitions of good and bad are not universal".

Prove otherwise. Provide one moral value that is universal to humanity.

"the first human "moral" is survival."
viewtopic.php?p=705420#p705420

certainly you must agree.....provided for the win!

BUMP for SteelHead might be unable to see all the posts

[_subgenius]

Sub,
I have provided examples and references...(snip)...

you mean like the incorrect reference for Polynesia?

[_subgenius]

Nice of you to provide an example of a play/movie of someone disregarding a moral code in order to not go hungry. Maybe you should also watch the movie Alive. Situational ethics is all about disregarding moral codes, and in many cases because of mortal risk. A good book/tv series with lots of examples of situational ethics is Game of Thrones.

yes, comparing Victor Hugo to Game of Thrones...how astute.

at this point it is apparent that you do not understand the topic. Your statement about situational ethics disregarding moral codes is correct in as much as Joseph Fletcher noted it...he was speaking particular to Christianity, and that this setting aside was only when the ultimate moral code was being preferred...this being Love. The "system" then sets forth its own morality, founded on that transcendent emotion/action of Love.
So, while you obviously missed the Victor Hugo reference of Javere being a legalist, or someone that adheres to the strict Christian Law (legalist) and how it is reconciled by the new Christian moral of Love.
Seriously, your posts display a cursory understanding of these concepts. Fletcher developed situational ethics with only "one" moral...a moral that he considered divine in nature, intrinsic to mankind, and universal.
ftw - again

[_SteelHead]

Sub,
I'm sorry but you all in no way refuted the charges that there are societies without morals against adultery.

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/IES/f ... sia.html#8

Extramarital Sex

Extramarital sex was also part of precolonial French Polynesian cultures. The Pukapukans celebrated a successful fishing expedition with extramarital sex. Apparently, women would initiate sexual joking as the men returned with their catch. This was followed by trysts in the bush. Both single and married people participated in these extramarital opportunities with no opposition from their spouse, provided they respected class and incest prohibitions (Oliver 1989b). Among the Tahitians, restrictions on sexuality occurred for upper-class women, sometimes before as well as after marriage, although men and women of common status were free to participate in extramarital sex (Oliver 1989b; Davenport 1977).

There were, therefore, two standards in effect for traditional Tahitians - one for commoners and others, and one for the very elite. Firstborn children, in genealogical lines of Firstborns, were regarded as very high ranking and sacred. Purity of the genealogical line was important and controlled through rules against premarital and extramarital sex until, at least, the woman gave birth to a successor. Then, she was permitted extramarital freedom. For example, Douglas Oliver notes that married ari’i women were notoriously promiscuous (Personal communication with Oliver 1994). Elite women were known to separate from their husbands and to establish their own residence and have lovers (Oliver 1974). Men and women of common status faced no restrictions on extramarital sex (Davenport 1976, Oliver 1989).

On Tahiti, according to Sahlins (1976), a male chief who produced an illegitimate heir practiced infanticide unless measures were taken to alter the status of the mother to be equal to that of the chief. On Mangareva, the chief’s power was such that the rule of prohibition against marriage to a first cousin was often disregarded.

Extramarital sex was also institutionalized in the Society Islands in terms of sexual hospitality. Male taiõ participated in a form of formal friendship relations where sexual intercourse was permitted with one’s married taiõ’s wife. Taw of the opposite sex were not permitted intercourse because their relationship was a social siblinghood and prevented by the incest taboo (Oliver 1974; Ferdon 1981). Sexual hospitality is regarded by some researchers as a widespread Polynesian pattern (Gregerson 1983).

Among the Pukapukans, adultery was believed to cause delayed delivery, and women in such situations were expected to confess (Gregersen 1983:255). Kirkpatrick (1983) did not find extramarital affairs practiced on United Airlines Pou, although Suggs (1966) reported that extramarital affairs were common in the Marquesas during his sojourn there. However, according to Goldman (1970:585) precontact adultery could have dire consequences, resulting in murder by jealous husbands and possible suicide by the wife of an adulterous husband. Suggs (1966:119-120) reveals that at the time of his research, although adultery was condemned, it still occurred. However, it caused jealousy and hard feelings among both sexes if found out.

Although adultery was the primary cause of breakups and divorce in Aeta and Fatata in the mid-1950s, it was not reason enough by itself. Oliver’s Tahitian consultants regarded adultery as something any Tahitian, given an opportunity, would be likely to do (1981:317). While church pastors in both villages declared adultery as a sin and cause for explusion, the Tahitian attitude was more relaxed, reflecting a double standard of greater tolerance of male adultery than female (p. 334).

In ancient Rome there men were allowed relationships with prostitutes and slaves. Women were not allowed the same. These double standards, caveats and exceptions also serve to evidence that there is no universal, intrinsic or transcendent rule against adultery, rather it is a rule of significant variations across cultures.

Throughout most of written history killing, raping looting, and pillaging were fine and acceptable, as long as you did it to "them" and not "us". The merchant caravans in Europe of 11-12 centuries were fair game for predation by the locals as they were "them" and not "us".

[_madeleine]

Again, not all societies define killing as immoral.
Not all societies view adultery as immoral.
Not all societies see stealing as immoral.

Your basis for argument is flawed. You are asserting without proof. Prove your basis. Eating is a necessity. Instincts are not morals. Correlation from one does not cross into the other.

I need a banging my head against a brick wall emoticon!

All societies have definitions that define murder, stealing, sexual mores. I agree they differ from culture to culture, which does not negate the universal aspect of all societies as having social mores based on the same things. It is this that is universal, even in your Polynesian example you specifically define what is acceptable sexual behavior, and what is not. These are moral rules for that society. That they don't match to the rules of your society, doesn't negate this universal trait of human societies.

I think that is about the 10th time I've typed that in various ways, so I'll leave it at that.

As for the metaphor, as I said, metaphors are not a one to one comparison! If you believe instincts are not necessary to survival, why do you surmise they exist? You were given a quote from Darwin who describes social mores as evolved means to the survival of the species, so in what way are they not necessary? And what society does not have social mores?

[_SteelHead]

Madeline,
You state that all societies have rules against adultery and then broaden out the definition to include every sexual behavior. Adultery becomes meaningless.

You claim all societies have morals about murder then broaden out the definition of murder as to be meaningless.

You claim all societies have morals about stealing and then broaden out the definition of stealing as to be meaningless.

Who is moving the goalposts?

There are no universally accepted standards as to good and bad. There are standards in all societies regarding acceptable behavior. That does not mean that the morals are intrinsic or transcendent, it means that having norms is a characteristic of society. You and sub have still failed at providing an example of a universal norm.

A society with norms and rules about who may sleep with whom, but which does not have taboos about extra marital sex, does not have a no adultery moral. It has sexual morals, but they are not classified as "no adultery".

[_madeleine]

Madeline,
You state that all societies have rules against adultery and then broaden out the definition to include every sexual behavior. Adultery becomes meaningless.

You claim all societies have morals about murder then broaden out the definition of murder as to be meaningless.

You claim all societies have morals about stealing and then broaden out the definition of stealing as to be meaningless.

Who is moving the goalposts?

There are no universally accepted standards as to good and bad. There are standards in all societies regarding acceptable behavior. That does not mean that the morals are intrinsic or transcendent, it means that having norms is a characteristic of society. You and sub have still failed at providing an example of a universal norm.

SteelHead, I have from the beginning said all societies have moral rules that are based on the same aspects of human behavior. You've had a fixation on definition, not me. My society uses the words adultery, murder, stealing. I don't know the words that others societies use, exactly, but they exist, and have nuanced meanings according to their culture. There isn't any goalpost moving here, just your fixation on an idea that there exists a society somewhere that has no social mores.

My point has, from the beginning been, all humans have a sense of what is right and wrong about murder, stealing, adultery. I have never said they are exactly the same across all cultures. I have repeatedly said that they are not. It is this "sense" that it is universal. It exists, rather than not existing. It seems to me you've been arguing that it doesn't exist. Perhaps I have misunderstood your argument.

I finally just had to spell it out for you, and it seems now that you get it, you think I've been saying something else all along. I'm Ok with you saying that is my fault. :)

[_SteelHead]

There is not fault, just talking past each other.

My contention the whole time has been that there are no intrinsic morals, but that all societies have morals.

Sub made the claim of intrinsic morals. So it is incumbent upon him to prove so. You seem to be supporting his assertion, but to claim that alp societies have morals does not translate into thou shalt not kill, thou shaking not steal, and thou shalt not commit adultery. As all 3 are perfectly and demonstrably acceptable in a variety of societies.