reply to post by KyoZero
Thanks for the ego stroke. Much appreciated.
I have a real hard time believing that if it weren't for religion we'd have no laws as some may have us think.
Struggling with religion my entire life I see this as the case as well. I have always perceived most religions to be for the "greater good" and see
them from a philosophical view moreso than a spiritual view that others would tend to lean towards.
Is something intrinsically wrong or is it based on societal ideas?
The horrible thing about it is that even if something isn't intrinsically wrong, but yet is embedded into a society as wrong - it is quite literally
impossible to be a part of minority that would choose to acknowledge or stand against society. In the end it leaves you with a feeling of entrapment
because these standards are forced upon you no matter what your thoughts of the situation actually are.
So here is my short answer...do no harm
The question is, who determines harm?
This is indeed a whopper of a question and is not derailing, merely digging deeper. Ultimately you could argue that everything you do might cause harm
to another. "Harm" would mean that damage would be incurred be it physically or mentally, however, the secondary definition or "harm" basically
labels harm as "wrong".
Wrong in all its essential glory means to be against something morally "right" or "good", which is all just a matter of opinion. A bolder and more
genuine definition of wrong would be "out of order" or "not in accordance with a standard".
With that the system collapses back upon itself with the same question - where does "right" come from? From ourselves or from the rest of society
who in turn adopted it from other societies? Is the essence of "right" or "wrong" something we as humans have developed throughout our growth and
evolution or is the concept something that began with the first existence of matter in the universe?
Harm is simply damage, but who determines damaged? Though one may act out of the ordinary, it is only though our perceptions that we consider them
"damaged". What if, instead they were fixed? What leads us to believe that the results of the acts we commit are necessarily damaging simply because
they cause an individual to be different?
reply to post by tothetenthpower
My belief is that when you end a life, of a human being, you shatter your soul.
I agree with you on this. Though I can't quite comprehend the scope of a 'soul' for better or for worse, the underlying humanity of a person is
definitely disjointed from such an act.
A child who is molested must live with the consequences of ANOTHER'S choices for the rest of their lives.
Ah, but which is worse? LIVING based on another persons actions or DYING based on another person's actions? This would pose the question is DEATH the
better alternative as opposed to living an altered, damaged life?
Personally, I look at the scenario that I do not understand death and being unable to prove an afterlife I must look at death as the end of existence,
at least for the physical body. Based upon what I KNOW, I would have to conclude that living, even while in a damaged state, is a much better options
that dying and perhaps facing the consequence of non-existence.
Having been suicidal years ago this was the rationale I used in order to talk myself out of it. However, that is not to say that my rational is
correct or unchanging - it is simply based upon what I know and what I perceive.
They have a shattered soul from that experience and it takes years to rebuild the self confidence, and self worth lost after such a traumatic
experience.
I would have to question this as a self-fulfilling prophesy of sorts. We don't exactly have psychological records of victims of pedophilia in the far
past, yet we know that it existed based on our definition today. We cannot say that those who were "victims" when it was less frowned upon did not
face psychological problems and traumatic times - but there is no proof that they did.
Therefore I beg the question - could the loss of self-confidence, traumatization, and psychological degradation be not based on the act itself - but
upon the fact that society treats them as the victim and thus instills the "symptoms" onto them? Hypothetically, if I was 'touched' as a child and
grew up with society never mentioning it, I could say that most likely I would grow up a normal person.
The same symptoms can be assessed by looking at corporal punishment. Less than half a century ago, the act of corporal punishment was considered
normal and a part of raising a child. The child grew up to be relatively normal throughout history based upon this. To disagree would be to say that
the majority of people in the past were mentally damaged by the punishment.
HOWEVER, once corporal punishment came into the spotlight and was deemed wrong, it was only then that the masses started recognizing these
"psychological effects" and that the people involved in such things started being classified as victims. Thus being classified as the victim by
society, they have no choice but to feel like they are abnormal and start fulfilling the expectations of one in their shoes.
I look back on history when corporal punishment was common and I look at people today - I see no real difference in their attitudes or their actions -
in fact I believe that the removal of corporal punishment degraded society even more, but that is a story for another time. The only difference is the
fact that a new set of "VICTIMS" were created and thus a new ethical and moral code was written, not based upon right or wrong, but upon the choice
of society.
As far as bestiality, I think that inherently we are not meant to lay with animals and animals cannot consent to such things therefore it's wrong
IMO.
Ah, but do animals consent to you butchering them en masse? Do they consent when we decide to destroy their homes to make ours? Do they consent with
fellow animals to mate?
The dice rolls all ways which is why the subject is so touchy.
As for poligamy, I don't think it's wrong.
But does what YOU think really matter? I do not thing it is wrong either, however, society seems to be against us. Even if it was consenting and
mutual, most of society looks upon the act of polygamy as wrong for no other reason that that they are told it is wrong.
I won't touch on the aspect of homosexuality that you have listed,
It is a keen point and as long as people stay civil it shouldn't derail. I do not believe it is wrong either but once again, it is
self-interpretation versus societal thought. Slowly the independent mind is white washed and replaced with a carbon copy of the rest of society and
the more I look into it, the more sickened I become.
The problem with society is the fact that has been brought up already - that we are not allowed to question the morals and ethics we are given. To
even question them, to most people, automatically labels us as opposition to the masses and thus "wrong" based on their written laws, which are
based upon morals and ethics.
I suppose when you think about it, it is impossible to impose a system of laws without setting a standard for morals and ethics - however, it must be
realized that with changes to morals and ethics, the laws must be changed to compensate.
Perhaps we have too many morals and that is why systems of laws or so overbearing and controlling. Perhaps simple, individual life is impossible in
today's world.