<p>bos4079, from logical conclusions from fundamental truths</p>
<p>“If you assert that there is no empirically correct morality then how, how can you claim that anything is wrong?”</p>
<p>Why would you not be able to claim that something is wrong? Just because something is not empirical, does not mean you can’t make a statement about it. You can say that, relative to some arbitrary perspective, X is wrong. Also, we generally live in societies with laws and accepted social norms. One must follow them, or suffer the consequences. This does <em>not</em> mean that there is an empirical basis for said laws/norms.</p>
<p>“I disagree on a religious basis. Or, more specifically, my child’s sex education would include a condemnation of artificial contraception. I would rather my child have unprotected sex than protected sex every time, although obviously that would be emotionally arduous for me and my family.”
Fine Baelor, but please do not force your ideas upon the public school system as your basis is from religion which is not accepted by the general population at all in the same way.</p>
<p>Baelor’s probably ■■■■■■■■. I don’t know. He sounds ridiculous.</p>
<p>Anyway, most hardcore Christians I knew at my university — they did have sex or wanted to have sex, at least.</p>
<p>Going to church every Sunday is not going to make you stop wanting ice cream all the sudden.</p>
<p>And they probably figured: have lots of sex, do whatever the hell you want, then ask for forgiveness from Jesus later. BAM. slate wiped clean. Now you are sin and guilt-free!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i quoted the relevant part, i thought. the red states do receive more funding from the fed. for abstinence-only sex programs.</p>
<p>i think that you can’t justify abstinence-only sex programs if your goal is primarily to reduce teen pregnancy. so i think that you’d have to have some moral beef with the idea of contraceptives themselves. so, yes, overall, the people/govt. in red states oppose contraceptives on moral grounds.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ok, you dislike christians, we get it</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>the idea of a morality derived from observation (i.e. figuring out what we should do by observing what we actually do) doesn’t make much sense to me. what if what we actually do is the wrong thing?</p>
<p>Oh, David Hume. What a hero.</p>
<p>you don’t think that we observe the consequences of our own actions as well as others to learn what is acceptable behavior? I think it is actually exactly what we do. It’s not putting on a lab coat and making notes of it, its more subconscious but still very empirical. I was not born moral, I admit that some morality that i gained was taught but much more of my morality is yes, due to observation.</p>
<p>So if I observe someone getting away with murder I should consider murder to be morally acceptable? Morality derived from consequences = awkward.</p>
<p>“what if what we actually do is the wrong thing?”</p>
<p>Then our whole society is wrong about some moral judgement? I think that is quite possible and probably true in at least one case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yeah i think i’ve talked about this before in a previous life . . . i don’t know, i just get mad when internet athiests condescend to religious folk. like somehow the athiests’ beliefs are the product of pure reason and that religious people made a miscalculation when figuring out how to view the world . . . eck</p>
<p>“you don’t think that we observe the consequences of our own actions as well as others to learn what is acceptable behavior?”</p>
<p>Also, if all morality is derived from behavioral observation, then where does the intial example of a moral behavior come from?</p>
<p>"i don’t know, i just get mad when internet athiests condescend to religious folk. like somehow the athiests’ beliefs are the product of pure reason and that religious people made a miscalculation when figuring out how to view the world "</p>
<p>I concur with this sentiment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>how are you making this judgment? you aren’t doing it by observing things . . .</p>
<p>Feelings/reactions of people around us? </p>
<p>Punching someone would not be wrong if it caused pleasure. How did someone first discover punching was (prima facie) wrong? I think by experience, no person was created with the knowledge that punching is wrong.</p>
<p>Ezekiel 23:19-21 (New International Version)</p>
<p>19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.</p>
<p>Just thought I would throw that out there. I don’t date, costs too much money and takes my mind off of academics and football.</p>
<p>“Punching someone would not be wrong if it caused pleasure.”</p>
<p>What if it gave <em>me</em> pleasure? Why should I care about the other person’s pain? I guess this is a problem of utilitarianism.</p>
<p>Why other people matter is an interesting question. I don’t have a good answer. All I knwo is that we do take into account other people in moral decisions. </p>
<p>Anyways, I think we have diverged enough. haha.</p>
<p>“All I knwo [sic] is that we do take into account other people in moral decisions.”</p>
<p>Haha, well of course, else we would scarcely have reason for moral considerations. Well, I suppose an exception would be believing that you have absolute morals as mandated by God.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay. I’m not even talking about sex education beyond that of my child.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For the record, not ■■■■■■■■. People have a tendency to think that I am when I’m not. It’s like a gift.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My only concern was your assumption that those in red states oppose contraception, which is the part of MY post that you quoted. I don’t care about anything else.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I DON’T CARE ABOUT ABSTINENCE-ONLY SEX PROGRAMS. I only care about opposition to contraceptives. You can’t use your own bizarre logic and framework to deduce what OTHER people may or may not believe. So either back up your statement that red states tend to oppose contraceptives more than anywhere else or just ****/retract your statement.</p>
<p>And about morality, I think it’s clear here that it is obvious that assumptions are necessary.</p>
<p>One cannot reach the conclusion, “murder is wrong/right,” for example, from the basic belief that we exist. I believe in morality, but I recognize that I am taking things on faith by doing so.</p>