Dying 13-year-old boy wants sex

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
RobertUrbanek
Apprentice
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:51 pm
Location: Vacaville, CA

Dying 13-year-old boy wants sex

Post #1

Post by RobertUrbanek »

Aside from legality, if a dying 13-year-old boy wanted sex with an attractive woman, would it be immoral to arrange for his wish to be fulfilled?

Would your answer be different if the dying teen was a girl or gay or lesbian?
Untroubled, scornful, outrageous — That is how wisdom wants us to be. She is a woman and never loves anyone but a warrior — Friedrich Nietzsche

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Post #51

Post by 2ndRateMind »

RightReason wrote: I’ll go out on a limb here and say rapists know what they are doing is wrong – they simply do not care.
Yes, you have gone out on a limb. How could you possibly know that? Or is this just a prejudice that suits your position?

If you are going to make things up just because it suits you to do so, we have no basis for a rational discussion.

Best wishes, 2RM

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #52

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]
1) Do you think you know the objective good in all situations and circumstances?

If so...

2) On what basis, and with what reasoning, do you arrive at this conclusion?

3) Does it not strike you as somewhat arrogant to think you are as morally infallible as God?

If not...

4) Why does this not persuade you that in some situations and circumstances your morality (ie, what you think good or bad, right or wrong) is your opinion only, and if in some situations and circumstances, for consistency, why not all?


Great questions.
1) Do you think you know the objective good in all situations and circumstances?
I think if one is being honest, human beings know/recognize right from wrong. I actually think it is not as grey as many like to suggest and that 99% of the time in 99% of the situations we are faced with on a daily basis right from wrong is not only known, but obvious.

I think in the remaining 1% it is something that can still be known and objective truth (right vs wrong) exists, but it isn’t completely initially obvious and can get complicated, but is there. Although, in these rare circumstances/situations it would probably be a good idea to talk it through with other respected, trustworthy fellow human beings who may be able to see more clearly not being personally involved and therefore less likely to allow feelings/emotions/personal perceptions cloud ones judgment in recognizing truth. Because although truth (right from wrong) can be known, it can also be missed for a variety of reasons. Human beings are amazing at rationalizing or even convincing ourselves that something is something else and therefore not wrong. There are many successful tricks to do this.

2) On what basis, and with what reasoning, do you arrive at this conclusion?
I base this truth in the recognition that truth is written in the world we live. Things have certain shapes, forms, order, etc which give clues about functions and purpose. As human beings we can observe how things work/operate. We can use science and reason to observe cause, effect, reactions, consequences, etc.

I think it’s precisely why man can and does confidently declare, “Rape is wrong� My basis for knowing we can know truth is because that is precisely how human beings act on a daily basis. Human beings in every society in every age value loyalty, friendship, love, etc. We walk around knowing we know what is right and good and rightly so – it is something that can be known. In fact, we are so confident in our ability to do this that we demand rightness/goodness from others. This is how we all operate daily.
3) Does it not strike you as somewhat arrogant to think you are as morally infallible as God?
Knowing and doing are two completely different things. All people are capable of knowing rape is wrong. Does that make us morally superior to God? Guess I don’t see the connection.

God designed the world and the natural law is written in His world. One does not even need to acknowledge God to acknowledge natural law. We all are subject to the same laws. You and I just take it one step further and give God the credit, but whether we do or not does not allow us to avoid natural law. It is something all men are subject to – whether they want to be or not.

I don’t think it is arrogant to know right from wrong. Even children, once they reach the age of reason, are capable of knowing right from wrong. This doesn’t make them arrogant – just capable of acknowledging what IS.

Again, we are talking about objective truth, so is it arrogant to know 2+2=4?
4) Why does this not persuade you that in some situations and circumstances your morality (ie, what you think good or bad, right or wrong) is your opinion only, and if in some situations and circumstances, for consistency, why not all?
We are a people who like our hypotheticals. We love to speculate – “who would win in a battle Super man or Batman? We love to say, “If 3 people were shipwrecked on a desert island and only enough food for 3 . . . “If your wife was dying and the only way to get the medicine she needs is to steal it . . .� But these are seldom the situations we find ourselves in life.

This is why even with something like abortion the only way the evil act can be possibly condoned is to suggest the 15 year old has been raped by her Uncle and now will die if she doesn’t have an abortion, even though 99% of abortions are elective and not cases of rape, incest, or where the woman’s life is at stake. But that is how human nature must attempt to rationalize this atrocity. Why? Because everyone knows the objective truth that it is wrong to purposely murder an innocent baby. Of course if we change the language – we say it is a fetus or clump of cells and not a baby then perhaps abortion is not wrong. Again, because everyone knows it is wrong to kill an innocent human baby, but if we can think/believe the baby isn’t human, then we aren’t doing anything immoral.

Anyway, would love to hear why you think we can’t confidently stand up for what is right vs wrong, when in actuality it is what we do within our own families and communities all the time. I don’t think Jesus or God were wishy-washy about right from wrong. Also, when one understands that it is only in living according to what is right/wrong will human beings obtain peace, happiness and human fulfillment, it seems like a no brainer. We aren’t doing ourselves or others any favors to suggest morality is subjective. It’s actually a disservice and could even be cruel.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Post #53

Post by 2ndRateMind »

RightReason wrote:
Great questions.
Thank you.

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]
1) Do you think you know the objective good in all situations and circumstances?
RightReason wrote: I think if one is being honest, human beings know/recognize right from wrong. I actually think it is not as grey as many like to suggest and that 99% of the time in 99% of the situations we are faced with on a daily basis right from wrong is not only known, but obvious.
Actually, I really think that if you think that you can tell right from wrong 99% of the time, you have not studied and explored ethics or applied ethics to any depth. But, since you seem to be enjoying this conversation as much as I am, you may well find such study interesting and amenable. I would recommend you beginning with a free mooc from edX, futurelearn, openlearn or some place similar, to see if it suits you.

More later, as time and inclination permit.

Best wishes, 2RM

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #54

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]
Actually, I really think that if you think that you can tell right from wrong 99% of the time, you have not studied and explored ethics or applied ethics to any depth.
If you read my whole post you will see that that is not what I said. I said, 99% of the time recognizing right from wrong is obvious and not grey like many pretend. The other 1% includes being able to know right from wrong, however acknowledging that it can be complicated or not immediately obvious because of multi layers. But if you notice, I did still say it is something that can be known.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Post #55

Post by 2ndRateMind »

RightReason wrote:

I don’t think it is arrogant to know right from wrong...

...Anyway, would love to hear why you think we can’t confidently stand up for what is right vs wrong, when in actuality it is what we do within our own families and communities all the time...
I do not think it is arrogant to know right from wrong. God does, and I do not think God is arrogant. But humanity? There seems plenty of evidence against the idea of human moral 'knowledge', and not very much for. So, yes, I would view humanity's claims to complete moral accuracy highly dubious and not a little arrogant.

With a little dispute around the edges, the epistemologists basically think that knowledge is justified, true, belief. The English philosopher AJ Ayer put it like this:

Agent A knows proposition P if:

A believes that P.
P is true.
A has the right to believe that P.

So, what is your right to believe that you know good from bad, right from wrong, 99% of the time? In other words, how do you know you know what is moral?

More later, as time and inclination permit.

Best wishes, 2RM.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #56

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]

I do not think it is arrogant to know right from wrong. God does, and I do not think God is arrogant. But humanity? There seems plenty of evidence against the idea of human moral 'knowledge', and not very much for.
As a believer, don’t you think God designed the world so that we are capable of knowing Truth?

So, yes, I would view humanity's claims to complete moral accuracy highly dubious and not a little arrogant.
Well, if moral truth cannot be known, how could we be responsible for our behavior/actions? Surely, we cannot be accountable for what we can’t know. That doesn’t make sense. Also, do you not think that non believers can know right from wrong?

Do you think rape is wrong? Is it arrogant for you to insist others not rape? Would you not proclaim that with certainty? And if you would proclaim it with certainty – how can you be so sure?

So, what is your right to believe that you know good from bad, right from wrong, 99% of the time? In other words, how do you know you know what is moral?
You could ask anyone that about anything.

Again, right and wrong can be known because, just like others, I have observed it. How do you know birds have wings? How do you know human beings have heads? How do you know smoking can cause lung cancer?

You: I don’t think a person can know something with certainty.
Me: Are you certain?

Your question borders on the age old philosophical question, “How do any of us know we are really here?� A clever philosopher reducing any argument to rubble, and yet is it a fair question or a distraction and avoidance from what we actually do know?

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #57

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to post 51 by 2ndRateMind]
I’ll go out on a limb here and say rapists know what they are doing is wrong – they simply do not care.


Yes, you have gone out on a limb. How could you possibly know that? Or is this just a prejudice that suits your position?
I must have missed this earlier comment.

A prejudice of mine? Really? You don’t think it intellectually dishonest to suggest a rapist does not know that rape is wrong? Hmmm . . . . is this perhaps why they don’t broadcast their rape, rather they hide and run? Do you know a lot of rapist bloggers claiming what they do is right and good?

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Post #58

Post by 2ndRateMind »

RightReason wrote: [Replying to 2ndRateMind]

I do not think it is arrogant to know right from wrong. God does, and I do not think God is arrogant. But humanity? There seems plenty of evidence against the idea of human moral 'knowledge', and not very much for.
RightReason wrote:...As a believer, don’t you think God designed the world so that we are capable of knowing Truth?...
Truth, Goodness, Righteousness, Justice, etc: No, I don't think God designed the world such that they would be easily found, if ever found at all. In fact, I rather think God so designed the world such that they would be humanity's enduring quest.

RightReason wrote:
So, yes, I would view humanity's claims to complete moral accuracy highly dubious and not a little arrogant.
...Well, if moral truth cannot be known, how could we be responsible for our behavior/actions? Surely, we cannot be accountable for what we can’t know. That doesn’t make sense...


The fact that absolute Goodness may never be known does not mean that, generation by generation, humanity cannot converge on it. Indeed, barring catastophe, and given a free society, I tend to think that is precisely what we do, simply by preferring the better to the good, the good to the bad, the bad to the worse and worst. But to claim to know the Best, in all situations and circumstances, is a claim too far for credence, to my mind.

There is a well-known, well-established legal principle that ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law is no excuse). If it were, we all would claim that we were ignorant, and get off with our crimes scotfree. And I believe the same holds for moral law, aka God's Will. It may be tough, but without this principle we would have no incentive to learn the law, or to enquire after what the morality in any given situation might be.
RightReason wrote: ...Again, right and wrong can be known because, just like others, I have observed it. How do you know birds have wings? How do you know human beings have heads? How do you know smoking can cause lung cancer?...
These are empirical questions, matters of fact, capable of being decided by careful observation and impartial experiment. Moral questions are not like that; simply observing people's behaviour will never prove that such behaviour is either moral or immoral.

Best wishes, 2RM.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #59

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]
Truth, Goodness, Righteousness, Justice, etc: No, I don't think God designed the world such that they would be easily found, if ever found at all. In fact, I rather think God so designed the world such that they would be humanity's enduring quest.
Hmmmm . . . . sounds a bit cruel. You really don’t think human beings are capable of knowing right from wrong? What is the purpose/meaning of anything? Why should we expect anything from anyone? Sorry, I don’t buy it – that theory seems illogical and does not corroborate human behavior.


RightReason wrote:

Quote:
So, yes, I would view humanity's claims to complete moral accuracy highly dubious and not a little arrogant.


...Well, if moral truth cannot be known, how could we be responsible for our behavior/actions? Surely, we cannot be accountable for what we can’t know. That doesn’t make sense...


The fact that absolute Goodness may never be known does not mean that, generation by generation, humanity cannot converge on it.
Well, now wait a minute . . . so you do think we can uncover truth?
Indeed, barring catastophe, and given a free society, I tend to think that is precisely what we do, simply by preferring the better to the good, the good to the bad, the bad to the worse and worst. But to claim to know the Best, in all situations and circumstances, is a claim too far for credence, to my mind.
So, you admit, one can recognize that which is better to the good, good to the bad, bad to the worst, etc. . .? So you do acknowledge a good, better, best scale? In order to admit we are getting closer to good implies there is a standard good that everything else can be compared to. This is exactly what I have been saying all along. And your very acknowledgment of that implies no arrogance necessary. Logically speaking, if we are capable of recognizing that which is better, than we can recognize that which is best.
There is a well-known, well-established legal principle that ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law is no excuse). If it were, we all would claim that we were ignorant, and get off with our crimes scotfree.
So true and exactly how the world works. Quite frankly, for example, nature doesn’t care if you didn’t know that having multiple sexual partners can increase your risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease. And your ignorance will not prevent you from getting an STD. It isn’t a punishment or the universe making a value judgment on your behavior. It just is a consequence of your behavior. And is precisely why as human beings we can say, some behaviors are better or worse than others. Again, you can say the better/worse claim is a value judgment, but it is a judgment based on facts. It really isn’t a matter of opinion.

And I believe the same holds for moral law, aka God's Will. It may be tough, but without this principle we would have no incentive to learn the law, or to enquire after what the morality in any given situation might be.
I agree with you. See my response above. However, just because ignorance is no excuse is a fact, does not negate that we are held accountable for our actions – it in fact demonstrates that we in fact still are accountable. Claiming we didn’t know our behavior could cause us to get an STD does not mean we are off the hook, as much as I might like to say it does. The truth is, knowledge is empowering and can be very helpful. We are wise to educate ourselves and act accordingly. And in doing so, we will be happier, and capable of obtaining greater human fulfillment, then remaining in ignorance and say contracting a sexually transmitted disease. This points exactly to what God is trying to tell us. He wants us to do what is right and good and moral – not because He is mean and needs to show He is in charge, rather because it is in fact in our own best interest and the only thing that will make us truly happy.
RightReason wrote:


...Again, right and wrong can be known because, just like others, I have observed it. How do you know birds have wings? How do you know human beings have heads? How do you know smoking can cause lung cancer?...


These are empirical questions, matters of fact, capable of being decided by careful observation and impartial experiment.
Bingo.
Moral questions are not like that;
Why do you think that?

I can think of a plethora of moral topics in which we can take the facts we have obtained via observation and show how the facts/science supports or does not support certain behaviors.
simply observing people's behaviour will never prove that such behaviour is either moral or immoral.
Why not? That is exactly how what is right/good is discovered (known).

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Post #60

Post by 2ndRateMind »

Uh huh. The difference between the two positions (yours and mine) seems to me to be this:

Position A. Moral positions can be known by simply observing human behaviour, and, indeed, humanity already knows what is moral, 99% of the time. There is no need for further explanation.

Position B. Moral positions cannot be known simply by observing behaviour, only by assigning a moral worth to that behaviour, an assignment that is inevitably subjective. However, differing subjective opinions may be more or less accurate, depending on how far they coincide with God's opinion. Just as humanity does not know God's omniscient opinion, aka moral or 'natural' law, humanity does not (yet) know what is moral in all situations and circumstances. However, we can use certain metrics to guide us, such as the amount and risk of harm any given behaviour might cause, versus the amount and likelihood of any benefits that might accrue.

Would you agree this is a fair assessment of our differences?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Post Reply