@Kaitou1412 : The problem with your argument is that morality is NOT subjective if it is grounded in factual analysis of observed data. Certain things are correlatably and observably detrimental to the wellbeing of the body-politc: two of those items are Rape and Incest. Both inflict permanent and lasting damage to the victim's psychological health, and for this reason are treated as negative, and in most areas criminal, acts the world over. I leave aside the rare instances of consensual same-sex incest, I am not a moralist nor priest, that's outside the scope of this discussion for me, but, my analysis of the overall arc of incest in the world is that by & large it is coupled with pedophilia and destructive in the extreme. @Cr4ck : A surpringly compelling and well reasoned argument. I will need to think more deeply about this.
I believe TheDespaxas said it best the last time this discussion was brought up in the Perils of a Novice Superheroine thread(that you were even involved in the discussion).
And the primary problem with your rebuttal is you only looked from a single perspective. There's multiple perspectives to every issue and testimony. This multiplicity is the foundation of the legal system and democracy - structures that seek to bring all sides together and deliver a consensus that will be consistent. Even that, however, is a pipe dream. The law changes with time. Since your main topic across this forum has been rape, let's remember that spousal rape was not considered a crime until The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women was published by The United Nations in December of 1993 and subsequently spread outside the UN's borders; prior to that, the law represented that a marriage certificate nullified the need for consent between the two people who signed said certificate, and some nations still hold this ruling. To date, rape by coercion is a debated issue not globally ratified into law. In parts of the world, rape is punished not for the effect on the victim itself, but as a property crime against the victim's family - in most cases, the victim is also considered to be a criminal since the rape was allowed to occur (a once-common rendition of rape law). And this is just legislation. I've yet to broach how social attitudes and scientific studies don't even reflect the representation of our legal systems, most notably in cases of female rapists. Universally ignoring the many perspectives each issue holds would eliminate the need to corroborate alibis, investigate insurance claims, deny the need for additional medical tests, and much more, as the first perspective can simply be taken on faith as the truth. Sorry, got preachy again. The point is every issue is multifaceted, not singularly as you've represented. The core of ideology is to look at all sides and achieve a decision: In the case of rape, this means weighing the victim's desire to control the fate of its own body and mind against the urge of someone who deeply desires coitus with the victim; In the case of incest, this means weighing the possibility of pregnancy and the risks to the potential child against the desire to have a sexual relationship (both explanations are extremely simplified, but I believe they'll suffice). While the general consensus holds that rape and incest are bad, the very fact that these two acts are perpetrated represent that some people in this world have reached the opposite conclusions, thereby proving the subjectivity of morality. Eh, I'd let it go this time. We're getting a bit off-topic, but the topic at hand right now is on the nature of morality, not what the site should host. Despite this being the wrong topic for such a debate, Nemo's opinion is no longer presented as objections to the kinks of others.
It's an odd thing to find some of the most civil, intellectually challenging debate I have ever seen on the forums to an erotic story site. And about age of consent, pedophilia, and the nature of morality no less!
I live in a state that your an adult at 17. So long as some states allow 18+ all states in the US seem to have to follow it. Shame too, since most kids are already aware of these sites and know how to get past the 18+ rule at 14 or 15 years of age. Better for them to be exposed to the negativity of the world early on then be sheltered and think the world is all sugarplums and roses.
Seriously have to disagree. Sheltering them from it all isn't a good idea but neither is throwing them off the diving board. The trick, as with most things, is finding and maintaining a balance.
I disagree with this statement so hard. >:[ For one thing morality is not universal. The concept/idea maybe, but not the core principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior, as they change from person to person in any given group of individuals, there by making it subjective. One example, I may think there is nothing morally wrong with taking mind altering substances, yet the person taking them might. On the topic of Incest; adopted siblings, step-siblings, or second/third cousins, or in laws, all count as incest. Leaving aside the age of consent argument, the US doesn't even have federal level laws, let alone uniform laws in the majority of states; in California I could fuck and marry my first cousin, and in New Jersey there are no penalties when both parties are 18 years of age or older. It is externally simplistic to deem Incest only one type: statutory rape, or that it does not has grey areas, much like underage kids fucking each other. Also I added this in later - I'm as pleasantly surprised as you are.
That is not a question of morality, but ethics. Ethics is cultural and subjective, morality, (when properly grounded in observed and analyzed factual data,) is not. Also, just because people TREAT morality as subjective and mutable does not make it so. Granite becomes sand when you grind it into its constituent parts, but until it gets ground up, (through immense effort and/or time...) it is one of the hardest rocks on Earth. It is the same with morality: What most people CALL morality is no such thing: True Morality, as opposed to Ethics, is scientific in its observation of Situations, Conditions, Actions, and the Results arising from the same. Each part, like a grain of sand split from a granite boulder, is meaningless by itself, but taken as a coherent whole it is rock solid and stable. When one uses true morality ones conclusions are inevitable and unchanging, more stable than the very stones beneath our feet*. *(Unless the very human race or the world(s) we inhabit are profoundly changed...) As I mentioned above, I am not discussing the bizare and rare edge cases such as step-siblings, god-siblings, adopted siblings, and brothers/sisters-in-law. These individuals, if their relationship is consensual, are outside the scope of this topic as far as I'm concerned. My points of argument are, have been, and shall remain the ruck and run of cases of incest, which are and have been primarily by older direct family members against those too young to understand the situation let alone give informed consent. Similarly I am not discussing the cases from royalty of lost cultures such as Egyptian Pharaohs and the Kings/Queens of the Hawaiian Islands: Though I will note that in both cases draconian culling programs were in place to deal with the consequences of inbreeding: programs that would not be permitted/condoned under the modern ethical standards of the areas in question. My argument, rather, rests on a simple and irrefutable precept: "The good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one." No matter how many consenting individuals might be inconvenienced or forced appart by the moral fact that incest is overwhelmingly negative and therefore needs to be both ethnically and legally proscribed, the fact remains that these people are a vanishingly small minority. Therefore thier case can, and must, yield to the needs of humanity as a whole. The Ethical quandaries of the vanishingly rare edge cases of fully consensual incest I leave to wiser heads than mine. As I have already said, I am neither politician nor priest. Perhaps a different standard of ethics needs to be applied in those cases? Perhaps we need to develop a better standard of ethics which is closer to True Morality? No matter the answers to these questions, facts remain facts, and the facts of this case are that the majority of cases of incest are also pedophilia. As such, the practice cannot be condoned.
Define morality then. I am very curious to hear how you define it if it is objective for you. Let's start euthanasia of people with mental illness for the good of the many! Yes I know I push the Godwin law button a little too too early but your statement is exactly what Nazies said
I would be interested as well. Personally I think of morality as more a "body of principles". While Ethics as how we adhere to a certain set of Morality (social, personal, legal, ect.)or not. And I don't see how you can say Ethics is subjective while morality isn't as both can be governed by different set of principles on a society by society basis. Therein my comment about first cousin Incest legality or moral relativity. But by the context clues I conclude that you're assuming True Morality is somehow subjective to possibly objective natural, for the lack of a better term, laws that which have no correlation to human relativism. I find it hard to believe as we can only test human ethics due to our awareness to the concept of morality, since we can't really determine if animals can or do act ethical/morally. However my personal belief doesn't have an issue with you believing it, fact is some form of universal morality that isn't tied to religious beliefs are far and away more acceptable to me. So even if I'm wrong I still don't fell like I lost. On this note, I always liked the moral conundrum of whether or not you would kill baby Hitler. I don't know how rare they are, I mean how many people would admit to having partaken in the act since they are a Taboo, not to mention the legal accountability. Well that's my issue your lack of distinction but so long as you've acknowledge the other forms in the catch all term of "Incest", I'm golden. I take issue with the oppressive solution really, such as outlawing all forms of Incest when the specific moral evil is not all Incest; much like my stance on drugs. Not all drugs (alcohol for one) should be given a blanket sentence of morally evil, some do however have a scientific basis for banning or bureaucratic control (cocaine/meth/ect.). It's that black and white stance based on the 'grater good' that does unintended or avoidable harm which I find abhorrent.
Do note that I make a distinction between the relativistic 'Morality' you speak of and the absolutes of True Morality, which are grounded in scientific evidence and factual determinations. In essence, True Morality is the first tentative steps twards the advances in technology and our own understanding of ourselves which will lead to the quantum leap of human understanding which is known as "Ethical Calculus". Ethical Calculus is a set of statistical and mathematical modeling algorithms which will allow us to make broad scale ethical policy decisions scientifically. Decisions which at present are mired in emotional states and outmoded belief systems forged by the socioeconomic forces of an age long gone. We have reached a threshold where our understanding of what the universe is and our place in it has called all we once thought we knew into question. Things once thought to be unshakable in thier solidity have crumbled like sand. Into the breach steps the power of SCIENCE, which states that one need not belive blindly: if you doubt, TEST and either prove your doubts valid for all to see, or let them be burned away in the blazing light of discovery. This is the basis of True Morality. We have seen enough, heard enough, done enough; that we can now say with a fair degree of certitude that some actions are universally detrimental to the body politic. Rape, Torture, Murder, Adiction, Vandalism, Pederasty: These and a handful of others have been identified as universally destructive to the well being of a society. These instances are few, and argued by a small minority in each case, but the evidence has inexorably mounted the more we investigate them that they ARE destructive. Conversely many things once THOUGHT unequivocally destructive have been shown to be insignificant: homosexuality, controlled use of intoxicating substances, extramarital sex, et-all. This is the basis of True Morality: scientifically collected and analyzed factual data. Ethics by contrast are value judgements placed on that data, which being mired in changing emotions and aspirations are inherently subjective rather than objective. We have not reached the point of Ethical Calculus, and as such must muddle along as best we can in day-to-day interactions. The moral standards have and continue to become more clear, but what we must do to apply them to edge cases and gray areas remains muddy. This is why I refuse to even engage in debate about such edge cases: the correct course of action in such situations is still unclear. Heads I win, tails you lose...
You do realize these two statements stand in direct opposition, right? The reality is that if we believe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, then murder is the most logical course of action in the world. dick88 brought up killing Baby Hitler, but it extends well beyond just that. For a simple example, let's take street gangs. Terrorizing neighborhoods, flooding them with drugs of questionable purity sourced from terrorists, and countless murders and assaults in the name of secrecy or territory. In the interest of the many, the best course of action is to revoke every right they're guaranteed and kill all of them without due process. Why? Well: 1.) No risk of retaliation against innocents. 2.) No chance of acquittal leading us back to the start of the situation. 3.) No possibility that the gang can be run from a prison. 4.) No tax money wasted to try them, house them, feed them, guard them, or parole them, allowing the money to be better spent on more meaningful projects. 5.) Eradication of the criminals results in lower crime rates due to the decreased number of criminals. 6.) Should they have been locked in a prison, they would have become victims of imprisonment, something else we know to be "universally detrimental to the body politic." And convicting them on every charge would result in them all dying in prison anyway. These are just a few points in favor of this idea. Doing the math out, every other possibility results in a further victim - the police officers involved in the arrest, the witnesses who testify against them, the residents of the neighborhoods they terrorize, etc. And this is merely one example. Should you do it for more cases, the numbers prove murder to be in the best interest of the many. If we base it on the needs of the many, then murder is the most rational solution to many problems. If we base it on the idea that murder works against society, then we cast aside the safety and well-being of the many to grant the few some rights they have not granted others. Holding both as truth is impossible.
I'm just waiting until the robots can do my thinkin' for me. Until then I'm jacking off to whatever gets me hard. Which turns out to be a lot of fucked up stuff. Hence, robots. The circle of logics is complete.
So... Do you believe in some perfect rules we need to discover using our intelligence and then everyone should follow them. What is the source of this rules? Some divine entity? What a bullshit answer is this? You are advocating a blatant and very dangerous form of a humanity-wide fascism-like ideology and should provide a better explanation why it is viable. I strongly suggest you to be killed and you internal organs being donated to people that needs them. After all needs of one can't be above needs of many. By taking your organs and transplanting them to people in need we will follow your philosophy and save lives. It is simple mathematics.
And just to remind people of the true debate here, because people miss the picture. Regardless of personal opinions on the morality of the acts described it was never the subject. The question was, is is immoral to describe through text an immoral act? My stance is no, a text has no real life consequences and harms no one. I accept that it could be the opinion of other that it is immoral, but... If they restrict this principle to rape, incest, underage sex and don't apply it to murder, violence, theft, lies etc Then they are free to do so but are hypocrites . I also note that as often the view of religious minded individuals denote their principle character flaw: the inability to differentiate fiction from reality. As an author my stance would be 17 for 2 reasons. -It's legal in most places -the fact that it makes high-school stories more believable and add an interesting dynamic with parents still having real authority over their children. (even outside of incest/sex situations.)
My response was strictly a pointing out of the accepted social construct of Godwin's Law, and rebuke of your use of the "Hitler Ate Sugar" ad-hominm attack. The precept of "The greatest good for the greatest number" is, has been, and ever shall remain the guiding principle of all stable and successful societies. That said, it is only a tool, and like all tools can be put to good or bad ends. I do not, as an example, advocate the revocation of the right to bear arms: however, there are weapons which can be turned to constructive purposes, and those whose sole purpose is bloody handed MURDER. You, for your part, appear to be advocating Anarchy, a system which has never, in the history of the human race, been successfully applied to any society. We have seen, time and again, that Anarchy is unstable and devolves rapidly into chaotic violence with no social covenant of any sort and each person fighting and killing anyone and anything else that crosses their path. If that is what you truly advocate say so now, because we can have nothing further to discuss. Furthermore, I do not advocate Fascism, quite the opposite: I advocate Democratic-Socialism, where the power of Industrial concerns and the moneyed elite is curbed and controlled to the benefit of the general public. Fascism is just an advanced form of Tyranny, and in another of those "Even A Stopped Clock Is Right Twice A Day" moments I am in complete agreement with the words, but not methods, of John Wilkes Booth: "Sic Semper Tyrannous!" The complete freedom of speech you advocate inevitably LEADS to Fascism. Only when speech is totally unrestrained can the soupy morass of lies, half-truths, and propaganda which gives birth to that hydra take hold. True FACTS and the accountability of our information sources to provide NOTHING ELSE are the only safeguards against Fascism or any other form of Tyranny, and that, right there, is exactly what you are arguing against.
Oh... It is a socialist I am talking with. As I suspected you advocate a humanity-wide fascism. Instead of interests of "race\state\nation are above interests of individual" it goes for "interests of humanity are above interests of individual." There are almost no difference here. Also, democracy\tyranny is irrelevant when we speak about morality. If decision like killing all Jews are made in a democratic way instead of being decided by a tyrant it wouldn't be any less horrible. No. I am advocating Liberal Democracy. You should know the system that runs in the civilized part of the world. It has its flaws but It works far better than anything tried before. Why answer direct challenges to your theories like excellent @Kaitou1412 post? You can always go for some vague thing no one ever mentioned before, right? @Nemo of Utopia People like you nearly killed my grandfather in Sachsenhausen. People like you nearly killed my grandmother using artificial famine in Ukraine. People like you are responsible for many other crimes in the history of humanity. I am disgusted spending my time talking with you. Furthermore, continuing discussion with you may be the end of my posting privileges because there are a huge chance that I will lose my temper and break few rules. I hope that you will have no chance to decide a fate of any human being. Don't expect any answer from me to whatever attempts to prove me wrong. It is well beyond original topic and I have better uses for my free time.
So be it. You have, in the space of a single day by my recollection, gone from civil and reasoned debate to calling me both Nazi and Communist, niether of which is accurate and which, furthermore, were mortal enemies. As it is clear that you cannot check your emotions in this matter, I applaud your decision to withdraw, it shows great maturity. On this topic of Democracy Vs Fascism I have one last thing to say and then I will quit the field as well. Socialism is a word which has been frequently misused, but do not mistake my use of it for the ways in which it has been abused by the Nazis and Bolsheviks. The socialism I speak of is that even now practiced in some parts of Europe, which has brought the nations that adopt it great success. Systems in which the basic needs of the population are provided for at the expense of the people most able to so provide: the Idle Rich. I do not and have not advocated tyranny, I advocate responsibility. (In a very tangentially related note, "Why, Yes; I am signed up as an Organ Donor: Why do you ask?")
